Mordred

See Olber's paradox. A photon is a quantum of energy in a finite locality. So yes you can have space without light in quantum localities. Energy is a property it does not make anything. It is a property that equates the ability to perform work. All forms of matter simply has the ability to perform work but solid is an illusion.

Energy isn't a substance either. Energy is the ability to perform work. It is a property defined by that definition. Not a thing it is a property There is no continuum under physics that is sci Fi

Are you deliberately being obtuse ? Spacetime doesn't have to be filled at every coordinate. It isn't some materialistic fabric.

The quantum continuum includes the field coordinates of spacetime.

There is space between particles if that's what you mean

Why is everything on your paper strictly two dimensional ? Yes that complies to a Hilbert space but if your going to model spacetime you need two Hilbert spaces with a parity operator. All your wavefunctions is two dimensional I suggest you study the methodology done by Wheeler DeWitt. You don't have the required dimensionality. You should also apply the FRWL metric for separation distance [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2][/latex] [latex]S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}[/latex]

The question doesn't make any sense spacetime isn't a fabric. You know the radius of the observable universe. You also know the universe can be finite or infinite. Thickness doesn't apply.

Space is just volume it may be filled with the SM particles but space even under GR still refers to a volume. Spacetime is any metric system that has time as a coordinate dimension along with the three spatial dimensions. The mean average energy density is [latex]7*10^{-10} joules/metre^3 [/latex] roughly 5 protons worth of mass per cubic metre. For the record you don't require DE to have an expanding universe. DE only accounts for the acceleration term of the scale factor. The Hubble parameter is decelerating.

If you ever look through particle data group you will literally finds 100's of particles. So many they they separate then into two groups. Physical and Resonant. The latter being in italic. The physical being the SM particle group. The reason for the separation is rather technical in their reasoning but correlate to the 18 parameters for the SM model on terms of symmetry group relations. (Resonant particles are extremely short lived)

Google pentaquarks while your at it. Point being the SM model discovers new particles all the time they just aren't newsworthy. They are usually previously predicted.

Where did you get this idea from because it's completely wrong. None of those values is the correct mass of the Higgs.

Actually some of the things CERN finds simply isn't news worthy. How newsworthy is diquarks.?

For starters GR doesn't dictate any SM particle. GRs only purpose is to correlate the mass terms to a 4D geometry. It doesn't matter what the particle is as long as you can correlate its energy and mass term it will work with it. The fact we have DM has nothing to do with GR. That's a particle physics issue. DE has a unique enough characteristics that it only made sense to include it seperately to the field equations. Also for the third time now galaxy rotation curves does not directly apply GR. Newtonian laws are sufficient for galaxy rotation curves. The Virial theorem is essentially Newtonian and Kepler laws with shell theorem.

Is there anything wrong with asking questions about a peer review process of a site ? I consider that information useful. I can certainly see practicality in awareness of a sites policy and procedures.

This isn't a bad start, the pdf looks promising but we prefer it if you can copy it here so others don't have to download it. It's also one of the forum rules. I like the math details you have but at work atm so when I get a chance I will look into it deeper. There are a few changes I will recommend and a few metrics that would be useful to add. Get back to this when I can I would off the bat recommend using the four momentum as applied under relativity and QFT in QFT the field is an operator.

It's only vaque if you understand the math and a couple principles of wave forms. If two waves intersect they interfere with one another if they have identical wavelengths they constructively interfere resulting in a wave amplitude the sum of both waves. If the waves are not identical you get destructive interference. Now forget thinking of particles as little bullets. Completely think of particles as a field excitation these excitations can interfere with each other. Also the slit itself can induce interference. If the interference is constructive sufficient for a quanta of energy)momentum you literally create a photon. (Particles are easily created and destroyed the greater the energy density the greater the particle number density) Now a non local wave is one that you cannot localize ie a sinusoidal wave have no determinable start and end point. However a localized excitation looks much like a spike with a few transition jitters. It has a well definable beginning and end to that wave pattern. This is the particle like portion. Both are waveforms but of two different patterns. That is the nature of wave particle duality from the Field point of view.

GR does work for galaxies it's simply not needed when you have virial theorem. Simply because you refuse to accept DM and DE is your issue that has nothing to do with GR. You can't describe galaxy rotation except by declaring you can but can't supply the formula to do so. We already went through that. I told you the name of the most successful equation that does an excellent job but you refuse to acknowledge it as it includes DM. The NFW profile. Until you can produce a formula that does a better job your claims based on your metaphysical arguments is meaningless in terms of predicting rotation rates.

Funny how I posted you a paper showing the solution to the two slit experiment. Obviously you didn't bother reading it. I can easily post the math behind quantum tunneling I can quaranteed it won't be understood by any that doesn't have extremely strong math skills. The descriptive given by Strange is fairly accurate but there is no easy way to explain how it occurs. First you have to give up all belief that particles are bullet like objects. As the solutions require wavefunctions.

According to your theory Not GR.

I have this rule when I make a declared statement I can back it up. I mentioned that I can point to where photons would not exist. This is during times where they are strongly coupled. See here for Thompson scattering coupling of photons to baryons during recombination. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~george/ay127/kamionkowski-earlyuniverse-notes.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj64M_ByfHjAhXKrZ4KHZutBGk4ChAWMAF6BAgHEAE&usg=AOvVaw2dW3IOdotMZpSjdfT8ZZ_6 When a particle is coupled to another the two become indistinct from one another. A modern example is Bose Einstein condensate state.

Oh yes I can, if you like I can also calculate the number density of photons from a blackbody temperature. At 2.73 k the number density of photons is pretty miniscule per cubic metre. Use the Bose Einstein statistics for that. You really shouldn't try and tell me what I do of don't know. I've been doing physics for over thirty years. You can bet I've forgotten more physics than you currently know. All particles virtual or real contribute to temperature little side note. However even if photons are around that still does not mean photons cause as spacetime.

The numerous path integrals is the probability function under QM. The path chosen follows the path of least action. Only one path is taken out of all the possible paths. It really boils down to the calculus if variations at its rudiments.

You really don't know enough physics to make declarations. Particles don't keep time. You don't need any single type of particle to have spacetime. Any collection of particles of any type resides in spacetime. You don't need virtual photons for that. Photons only mediate the electromagnetic field. Yet particles that do not interact with the EM field still experience gravity. Your also wrong in terms of action. Do you even know how the principle of least action applies to path integrals. Go ahead try and prove me wrong and describe it with the math. You will never be able to prove virtual photons are required to have spacetime. Photons has the wrong properties to be the mediator for spacetime. Mainly spin. Now as I stated the equation you posted was not the equation for a virtual photon You yourself in the previous two posts showed it is the time dependent Schrodinger equation. That is not how you model a photon virtual or otherwise. You don't take the Schrodinger equation and declare it is a particle wave function. Not to repeat the fact that Schrodinger equations are NOT Lorentz invariant.

No definitely not that sphere is showing the volume of a sphere which your wave equation does not represent. So how can your sphere represent a virtual photon ? Secondly spacetime can exist without virtual photons. Photons virtual or otherwise has spin statistics of 1. Spacetime displays spin statistics two Ie gravity waves are quadrupole. Action is in units of quanta however it is a relation between potential energy and kinetic energy. (EVERY FIELD CAN CAUSE ACTION ) The entirety of the Standard model of particles through the Langrene applies action. Action does not violate the conservation of energy/momentum it follows that conservation law just as the everything else does. The wave equation you keep posting does not describe the wavefunction of a photon. It does not have the left and right handedness components of a spin 1 particle and does not reflect the two polarity states of a photon. Virtual or otherwise.

Game of thrones currently binge watching. Never watched while on TV. Now have all the DVD except last season.