Mordred

By the way you just confirmed your model has nothing to do with Smolin's

Great what are your boundary conditions. What is your maxima and minima defined as for your closed strings.

Quantum foam described the various degrees of freedom that are not described under string theory except as seperate strings nice try. Secondly Quantum foam is a canonical treatment that utilizes Wicks rotations for its boundary conditions. It does not involve Dirichlet boundaries String theory does not apply Wicks rotation

Sorry but that last doesn't make much sense. A field is an abstract device describing a set of values/mathematical objects that have a coordinate basis. So a void with spatial components would have a set of values at each coordinate. Even if the value for say as an example the energy density is zero it is still treatable as a field as we can assign coordinates to any void.

Strings has nothing to do with quantum foam. Quantum foam of LQC is not a string theory. Do you even know what string theory describes ? Do you know the difference between an open or closed string or the meaning of a brane ? Do you know what a Direchlet boundary condition is ?

You know what is funny about your claims Lee Smolin literally hates string theory altogether. His books clearly states such. All your claims thus far in this thread matches none of Lee Smolin's views. For one thing Smolin recognizes causality. Not once has he ever claimed any violation of such in terms of the premises under GR.

The term void isn't really applicable under either QFT or QM. For that matter not even under GR. Your far better off describing fields than voids. Under field treatments the propogator action is spread out onto the field. The propogators propogate the operators and the operators operate upon the propogators. If you think about that statement it's much the same as spacetime tells particles how to move while particles tells spacetime how to curve. I recognize your looking for the distinctions between observable and non observable quantities this is the basis behind Quantum Darwism but you don't need to invent new physics to define that. There is tons of research on those distinctions already out there if you study them in detail. Tests on quantum Darwism literally shows that even in the Macroscopic world that wavefunctions of QM occur.

An operator is an Observable quantity. The external lines of the Feymann diagrams you mentioned in your OP. Propogators are the internal lines they contain the information of how states change to other states. The problem is you cannot have decoherence on particles unless you are describing their wave functions. So you wouldn't have quantum Darwism.

Tell me do you even understand how Quantum Darwism, Unruh radiation or particle/antiparticle pairs work with each other ? You mentioned three mainstream theories but then complain when I give you the mainstream basis of the simplist one to model. To answer an earlier question of a post you edited later on. A is the creation operator under QFT. A with the dagger is the annihilation operator. The B is the operators for antiparticles. K corresponds to the momentum operator hence it is a vector. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_annihilation_operators The wiki article covers mainly the QM treatment but position is downgraded to a propogator and the field is upgraded to operator under QFT. Which uses the Klein Gordon and Dirac equations to better handle Lorentz invariance. The Schrodinger equation of QM isn't Lorentz invariant.

How can the particle only view possibly work with decoherence which is of wave nature ? Quantum Darwism involves wave properties.

That article certainly hit a huge media blitz but I wouldn't take it too far until you can review the pdf with the mathematics.

Doesn't matter particles don't spin like a top. A ball only takes 360 degrees before it arrives at its original state. An electron requires a 720 degree rotation to reach its original polarity stare. Orbiting an atom won't change the last comment I made (electrons aren't orbiting. The orbital refers to the standing wave probability of locating an electron it is a mathematical probability density function. I have no idea what you mean by cloaking idea. This isn't science fiction. The quantum world obeys GR.

As Strange has correctly mentioned no particle with mass can move at c.

Ok here is the thing, you started with quantum particle/antiparticle creation so I provided those mathematics. You are then discussing quantum Darwism. So this theory involves pointer states and Einselection. The Unruh effect is an observer effect in so far as different observers can measure different particle number densities. I gave you a starting point. It is trivial to apply Unruh effect to the math I provided. Quantum Darwism may take a bit more work however it is plausible. Keep in mind this is your theory while I will assist others in building their models I won't do all their work for them. You have a plausible hypothesis. As far as those I described. (I will warn you however that it will take considerable work to understand how pointer states work with the S-matrix) the mathematics above is simply a starter to the equations you will need. Particularly in terms of its fundamental purpose of defining locality vs non locality in terms of observables with coherence and decoherence terms. (The above will all apply to quantum gravity treatments as well) The mathematics I posted aren't restricted to any particle species they can be applied to the entirety of the SM model.

The first paragraph or so of your idea involved particle antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. So I provided the QFT mathematics of such an environment.

Yes I'm satisfied you have looked closely at both 1 and 2. You now have enough of the FLRW metric formulas that you can now toy model different density components so that you can check your modelling with regards to the cosmological problem at any time scale. Well done

It doesn't matter if you care about electrons or not. It is a form of matter, so you must account for it as well. Particularly since every atom has electrons. QFT doesn't need updating simply because you say so. It is one of the most successful theories regardless of your misguided opinion

As you have a mixed state of contributors though the principle contributor is Lambda your better off using the full formula. Formula one that you have would only apply to a Lambda only contributor. If you were to compare to say the CMB time at z=1100 you would get inaccurate answers as the CMB is part of the matter dominant Era shortly after the radiation Era. Lambda dominant Era started roughly at universe age 7 Gyr depending on dataset used Here is the H/H_0 as a function of redshift. [latex]H=H_0\sqrt{\Omega_{r,0}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{m,o}(1+z)^3+\Omega_{k,0}(1+z)^2+\Omega_{\Lambda_0}}[/latex] [latex]\Omega_{k,o}=1-\Omega_{r,o}-\Omega_{m,o}-\Omega_{\Lambda,o}[/latex] which describes the curvature term. Though for a critical dense universe simply set to curvature density to zero. Ie ignore it in the above equation. Now you can apply any dataset. (Lol you can even toy model expansion rates of different component universes such as a matter only universe ) simply set unneeded terms to zero Notice the [latex]\Omega_\Lambda[/latex] doesn't change...the total energy of Lambda however does.

The radiation density was incorporated into the Seq value if I recall correctly Cuthbert was the main programmer same with the [latex]1-\Omega_0 [/latex] D particle is the particle horizon. Here is the formula derivatives they used to produce the calculations. http://cosmocalc.wikidot.com/advanced-user We used the methodologies presented by Line weaver and Davies hence the usage of Stretch which is the inverse of the scale factor. So the formulas were modified accordingly. Incorporating radiation density and matter density into Seq was essential to produce the correct calculations which we compared to Planck and WMAP datasets following the graphs of Lineweaver and Davies paper. Each program adjustment we has gotten several PH Ds to help confirm via several forums.

So how does electron flow work in copper wire ? It seems you are thinking electrons as a physical object so please explain that. I can name other matter particles that can readily pass through solid objects.

Wave particle duality is highly tested. Your false assertions are not. Your also thinking of particles as little solid objects. They are not, QFT applies Relativity and uses spacetime it isn't seperate from it.

a would be the differential between your H/H_0 recall that a as the scale factor is just a dimensionless ratio parameter. You set scale factor at cosmological time now at 1. a would be the differential between your H/H_0 recall that a as the scale factor is just a dimensionless ratio parameter. You set scale factor at cosmological time now at 1. Here this will help [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&863.334&0.000551&0.000915&45.159913&0.052309&0.071406&18.232&15740.128\\ \hline 0.001&683.804&0.000810&0.001326&44.962398&0.065753&0.089864&15.881&10859.192\\ \hline 0.002&541.606&0.001183&0.001915&44.736079&0.082599&0.113040&13.885&7520.218\\ \hline 0.002&428.979&0.001722&0.002756&44.477683&0.103683&0.142116&12.180&5224.758\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&269.117&0.003606&0.005666&43.849475&0.162938&0.224202&9.443&2541.361\\ \hline 0.005&213.154&0.005194&0.008100&43.470902&0.203941&0.281289&8.340&1777.702\\ \hline 0.006&168.829&0.007463&0.011563&43.042568&0.254948&0.352603&7.377&1245.393\\ \hline 0.007&133.721&0.010698&0.016484&42.558633&0.318265&0.441559&6.533&873.554\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 0.012&83.889&0.021873&0.033412&41.396601&0.493471&0.690005&5.138&430.988\\ \hline 0.015&66.444&0.031211&0.047518&40.702622&0.612585&0.860719&4.561&303.042\\ \hline 0.019&52.627&0.044487&0.067545&39.921133&0.758568&1.071848&4.051&213.190\\ \hline 0.024&41.683&0.063355&0.095974&39.041469&0.936624&1.332155&3.600&150.041\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 0.038&26.150&0.128224&0.193578&36.938267&1.412573&2.043059&2.845&74.389\\ \hline 0.048&20.712&0.182274&0.274818&35.686105&1.722983&2.519001&2.530&52.398\\ \hline 0.061&16.405&0.258995&0.390062&34.278330&2.089532&3.094542&2.250&36.917\\ \hline 0.077&12.993&0.367873&0.553490&32.695921&2.516347&3.785220&2.002&26.017\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 0.123&8.151&0.741396&1.112970&28.920472&3.547949&5.570564&1.587&12.938\\ \hline 0.155&6.456&1.051751&1.575989&26.679131&4.132295&6.685941&1.415&9.137\\ \hline 0.196&5.114&1.490772&2.226851&24.167785&4.726112&7.950210&1.265&6.467\\ \hline 0.247&4.050&2.109877&3.133394&21.362526&5.274330&9.344906&1.135&4.596\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 0.394&2.541&4.180384&6.013592&14.827243&5.835394&12.323993&0.942&2.395\\ \hline 0.497&2.013&5.813076&8.053192&11.147771&5.539179&13.731340&0.888&1.788\\ \hline 0.627&1.594&7.955449&10.346218&7.320583&4.592515&14.935503&0.873&1.392\\ \hline 0.792&1.263&10.632280&12.576261&3.528946&2.795101&15.853609&0.907&1.145\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.263&0.792&17.302122&15.660852&3.144839&3.970507&16.845080&1.161&0.919\\ \hline 1.571&0.637&20.811932&16.388509&5.639833&8.860361&17.041221&1.380&0.879\\ \hline 1.955&0.512&24.444731&16.808523&7.715938&15.083827&17.146441&1.675&0.857\\ \hline 2.433&0.411&28.147021&17.039505&9.416655&22.906412&17.198866&2.056&0.845\\ \hline 3.027&0.330&31.886775&17.163312&10.797410&32.682676&17.221760&2.540&0.839\\ \hline 3.766&0.265&35.646534&17.228668&11.913050&44.870264&17.228668&3.148&0.836\\ \hline 4.687&0.213&39.416981&17.262737&12.812202&60.047793&17.262737&3.910&0.834\\ \hline 5.832&0.171&43.192748&17.280614&13.535828&78.939747&17.280614&4.860&0.833\\ \hline 7.257&0.138&46.971377&17.289940&14.117812&102.450932&17.289940&6.044&0.833\\ \hline 9.030&0.111&50.751666&17.294639&14.585725&131.708610&17.294639&7.519&0.833\\ \hline 11.236&0.089&54.532554&17.297194&14.961819&168.115662&17.297194&9.354&0.833\\ \hline 13.982&0.072&58.313845&17.298546&15.264097&213.418728&17.298546&11.639&0.832\\ \hline 17.398&0.057&62.095516&17.299100&15.507045&269.791380&17.299100&14.482&0.832\\ \hline 21.649&0.046&65.877123&17.299503&15.702284&339.937814&17.299503&18.020&0.832\\ \hline 26.939&0.037&69.658785&17.299738&15.859189&427.223615&17.299738&22.423&0.832\\ \hline 33.521&0.030&73.440477&17.299885&15.985286&535.836513&17.299885&27.902&0.832\\ \hline 41.711&0.024&77.222357&17.299813&16.086628&670.987643&17.299813&34.719&0.832\\ \hline 51.902&0.019&81.004072&17.299891&16.168066&839.160848&17.299891&43.202&0.832\\ \hline 64.584&0.015&84.785791&17.299957&16.233514&1048.424819&17.299957&53.758&0.832\\ \hline 80.364&0.012&88.567685&17.299844&16.286113&1308.819673&17.299844&66.893&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] Row 1.00 is today after row 1.00 is future. Previous is past.

Constructive interference if they have different phases destructive interference. I did post a link describing this. See the link on wave interference.

unfortunately that doesn't work with the mass density. Nor does it work with the radiation density. As the universe expands these both decrease at the ratios I have provided above. Were not dealing with the total energy content of either they are assumed constant by the adiabatic expansion (adiabatic means no net inflow or outflow of energy) the particle density is typically set constant at roughly 10^(90) particles. unfortunately as the universe expands Lambda increases in total energy Here is something I want you to consider, when it comes to vacuum densities we have numerous overlapping densities. You have the zero point energy, the VeV of the Higgs field the cosmological constant etc. In a particle/antiparticle complex scalar field of creation and annihation of a complex scalar field the energy density can reach infinity. However consider this we cannot know the absolute energy of the vacuum, we can only measure its potential differences. Think of an electric wire you can only measure the voltage across some potential difference such as a resistor... this brings back to mind an article By Unruh on the cosmological problem in that he argues that the fine tuning problem can be resolved via parametric down conversion and an inhomogeneous vacuum. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00543.pdf you may find this interesting. PS your one of the few posters who has a thread in Speculation forum that sticks to the proper methodology in modelling and following the Speculation forum guidelines in making testable predictions via mathematics so I gave you a +1 for that

Ok lets do this I had to review a few things, particularly with the curvature constant. [math]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{kc^2}{R^2}\frac{1}{a^2}+\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}[/math] kc^2/R^2 is the curvature term in a Lambda free universe if a value of H^2 is given there is a link between the curvature term and [math]\rho[/math] and this leads to the critical density [math]\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/math] if the universe is at critical density it is flat. [math]\Omega=\frac{\rho}{\rho_c}[/math] so we can rewrite the FL as [math]1-\Omega=\frac{-kc^2}{R^2a^2H^2}[/math] if [math]\rho=\rho_c[/math] we have flat if [math]\rho>\rho_c[/math] universe is closed if [math]\rho<\rho_c [/math] universe is open. now we have to incorporate the fluid equations for adiabatic expansion. from the first law of thermodynamics [math]DE+PdV=0[/math] [math]\dot{v}/V=3\dot{a}{a}[/math] and [math] DE/dt=\rho c^2dV/dt+c^2Vdp/dt[/math] this gives us [math]\dot{\rho}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho+P/c^2[/math] so [math]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho+3\frac{P}{c^2})+\frac{\Lambda C^2}{3}[/math] given [math] P=wc^2\rho[/math] combining this equation with the following [math]\dot{\rho}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho+P/c^2[/math] gives us [math]\rho=\rho_0a^{-3(1+w)}[/math] from this we can determine the matter density [math]\rho_m=\rho_0a^{-3}[/math] and radiation [math]\rho_r=\rho_{r,0}a^{-4}[/math] so now you can compare densities to obtain [math]\Omega[/math] note that [math]\rho_\Lambda=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{8\pi G}[/math] giving [math]\Omega_\Lambda=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3H^2}[/math] taking the ratios of [math]\Omega[/math] gives us the energy density that dominates example radiation to matter is [math]\Omega_r/\Omega_m=\rho_r\rho_m\frac{1}{a}=\frac{1}{3600 }a[/math] if a_0=1 then there was a time the universe was radiation dominant. for a Lambda dominant [math]\dot{a}^2=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}a^2[/math] so for the evolution of the three components we get [math]\frac{H^2}{H^2_0}=\frac{\Omega_{r,0}}{a^4}+\frac{\Omega_{m,0}}{a^3}+\Omega_{\Lambda,0}+\frac{1-\Omega_0}{a^2}[/math] this is how its done to preserve the curvature terms and account for the radiation and matter dominant eras hence my hesitancy on your second equation