Mordred

Not necessarily. Did you click matter waves on that link the matter waves link details two experiments involving electrons wave nature in scattering experiments Here is one of them https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davisson–Germer_experiment Some of the others are mentioned here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_wave

Why would you think that considering the responses you have recieved ?

Not as far as the universe today but I do question it's validity at other cosmological times. The problem being how the critical density evolves while Lambda doesn't.

Letter me ask you a question that you can use to help you. What happens when two waves interact ? It doesn't have to be matter waves or force waves. Here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_interference

That's correct but it has been conjectured in applications beyond blackhole entropy. Though it lost popularity to Shannon entropy. Anyways the question still stands how many bits would one need to simulate the observable universe and all the quantum information it would contain. If the OP wants to restrict this to observation then ask the question how many bits of information does a single human process in a second just in visual sight. There is theoretical limits to how much information that can be packed within a finite volume. I mentioned some of the involved theories. So the gist of the question is How much information would one need to simulate an entire universe and using these theoretical limits how much space would one need to store that information to run said simulation ? Those are the kind of questions the OP should be asking...

Apply probability functions involving 26 electrons in a finite spacetime region. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound Then consider further the entropy association to the effective of freedom

Consider how particles can decay into other particles when the original particle does not contain the other particles. Consider how two protons can form Higgs boson as one example. This is just one example where the field excitation formalism of QFT makes more sense than thinking of particles as little billiard balls.

An older article on the Berenstain bound. Perhaps the OP should look into it as a starting point.

All particles are field excitations which is a wavefunction. All fermionic particles count as matter this includes electrons.

I've seen calculations that for a single atom of iron you would need 10^80 bits of information. So it is a relevent question.

Let's ask a question here, how much raw data do you think it would require to simulate an entire universe with all the relevant probability functions and wave functions of every particle. This is something that has come up before in simulated universe theories and it does have relevance

Supergravity theories vary depending on the model. Primarily the models are under MSSM supersymmetry. The radiation would still be sufficient to overcome the quark gluons plasma self gravity otherwise the universe would have simply collapsed prior to inflation. Supergravity still has gravity but it is in thermal equilibrium with the other three forces. In essence the four forces cannot be distinguished from one another.

Thanks for the catch it was 5 am when I typed that and hadn't had my first coffee lol

Acceleration is not the same as momentum. Why don't you study basic physics terminology

Incorrect force is not momentum. You should really learn the definitions of each term. For example the unit of force is a Newton. Which is the amount of energy required to move a 1 kg mass one metre in one second. It should not take long to include your vector directions with your post. The SI unit for force is N for newton while the SI unit for momentum is kg*m/s. Momentum has dimensionality MLT^-1

You need to be careful here. Consider two fundamental questions. The critical density itself changes over cosmological time however the cosmological constant stays constant... The critical density is calculated without lambda and without any curvature term. Our universe is close to flat however not precisely flat... Now apply that to your second equation that you derived in your last post. If [latex]\rho=\rho_{crit}[/latex] Then k=0. Our curvature term k isn't precisely 0 though close. Remember the critical density is a calculated density not the actual density. Consider this at z=1100 roughly CMB surface of last scattering H is roughly 22000 times the H_0 value today. Yet the cosmological constant is the same in both then and now...

First equation shouldn't have the c^2 in the numerator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann_equations#Density_parameter equation two doesn't look correct either as the Lambda energy density is just a fraction of the critical density. value should be of the order [latex]7*10^{-30} g/m^3[/latex] edit:Doh wait you wanted the energy critical density which explains the C^2 as opposed to the mass critical density, you have it correct on both just forgot that conversion

! Moderator Note Well your correct this thread certainly doesn't belong in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum as it is more philosophical than hard physics. So I will move it to the Philosophy forum.

No they don't not from what I recall from your posts on this site. Smolin has his own ideas on realism and the problems facing physics in terms of quantum gravity. One of those ideas involves cyclic universes and the usage of Chern-Simons time. Smolin looks for alternatives for GR as well.

research google can be your friend there are plenty of reviews out there atm

Many of his books are popularization books, they typically do not include much in the way of mathematics but their philosophical viewpoints. Smolin is well known as a Realist supporter and has contention on a number of mainstream theories particularly String theory. There isn't an article per se its actually his book that is being discussed entitled 'Einstein's Unfinished Revolution' Smolins professional work when presenting actual theories does indeed include the mathematics. Some of his mathematical work is quite impressive

I seriously doubt Lee Smolin would ever steal your work as that article is a prelude to one of his books, secondly if you were correctly following forum rules particularly in the Speculation forum then there would be no need to lock your threads. It doesn't matter how radical an idea is if you include the required modelling methodology. Ie the needed supportive mathematics...

In all your equations where is your direction components for your vectors ?

Look in every physics textbook or for example the barycentre for the Earth Sun system. The Centre of mass is off centre of the sun due to the gravitational force of attraction of other planets such as Jupiter If you wish confirmation study Kepler's laws. The centre of mass is always the vectoral sum of forces. From your own link Choose a reference point R in the volume and compute the resultant forceand torque at this point, what do you think a resultant force is ?

A centre of mass is a point defining a summation of forces. If the COM changes direction then forces must have shifted in some manner to account for the shift in Com.