Mordred

We account for radiation pressure due to photons in the FLRW equations, as mentioned its density falls off as a function of volume. The ratio its density reduces follows the relation to the scale factor of [latex]\rho\propto a^{-4}[/latex]. In the early universe the radiation pressure was sufficient to be the dominant contributor to expansion (this includes all particles whose momentum greatly exceeds its rest mass) such as neutrinos however as the volume increases they simply dilute to the point where they can no longer counter the gravitational terms. The next stage is matter dominant which is harder to explain how it can contribute to expansion but a simple explanation is that as matter starts to form structures its average density decreases so gravity has less of a hold in the regions away from the structure formations. The stage were at now is the Lambda dominant (DE or cosmological constant). see here for more details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

And yet it has proven to be so incredibly accurate that it is still applicable today with extreme accuracy right up until you get into requiring relativistic corrections. Yet you claim it is not constant despite its incredible successes with numerous mistakes in much of your mathematics. Many of those mistakes have already been pointed out. Even if you had correct mathematics, you still require measurement support. In the mainstream methods the fact that it has been so successful in predicting planetary motion and satellite orbits etc tells a completely different story than your claim. precisely if G was not constant this alone would have reflected in errors in these applications. For example it would have applied in fuel consumption of all those spacecraft. Not to mention determining the correct stable orbits...

There is evidence for inflationary processes contained in the CMB its one of the fundamental reasons its primarily used to determine which inflationary model is more accurate. Granted it is based on indirect evidence as opposed to direct but it is still evidence.

You do realize there is a difference between g and the constant G right ? That last link shows the [latex] 1/r^2[/latex] relation for g not G. The constant G is kept constant in every calculation in that paper. The mass terms however may vary such as above the mountain example or the equator. The variations in mass distribution affect the mass terms not the constant G.

Let me ask you a question, If you have an expansion force strong enough to cause matter to expand (as I think your implying here) How can stars ,galaxies and planets form ? Yes there is strong evidence that inflation occurred, however there is also some models that argue against inflation.

One of the primary reasons I endeavour to be an informative and accurate as possible in my responses. +1

same qualities I enjoyed in the Firefly series

! Moderator Note You will get the correct assistance in our Climate science forum than in the quantum mechanics forum. So I will move this thread to a more appropriate forum to better address your question. I would think any greenery helps if in abundant enough quantity and land mass.

Well considering this sequence of terms it certainly sounds like something that's been chewed. Quantum mechanics, holographic field theories, and string theories all use GR in their applications. None of these theories specifically describe other universes per se, but any of the above can describe alternate universes their primary goal is to describe this universe but not as reflections. Though I do recall one paper along this line in terms of galaxies but that fell out of favor long ago with observational evidence. It was so long ago I can't recall all the particulars. LOL just to put a more serious note to this thread

Much of this statement applies to me as well except I don't work on clocks lol. I just watch them for the next break . Seriously though I too will assist anyone willing to learn, but when they start stating its this way with no knowledge of the topic they are discussing it gets rather annoying. My wife often hears me screaming "How can he be that &*&*&*". One wonders why I assist on forums, however I've had some modicum of success in that I currently know of 7 previously assertive layman posters I've struggled with in the past who later decided to actively pursue their studies and are now working in the physics profession. Seeing someone learn from your efforts is the reward

One can discuss the concept of different universes in the context of different causally connected regions of the overall universe. The term universe gets rather ambiguous in this application. For example in the chaotic eternal inflation model one can have different bubble universes that are causally disconnected from one another. However none of this defines how these universes evolve per se in accordance to the cosmological constant problem, only that different expansion rates can apply in each of these causal disconnected universes or each can have the same expansion rate but they remain causally disconnected depending on the local where the fluctuation first occurred in the initial spacetime. Please note the application of causally disconnected (extremely important in this application) the last link by Beecee is a descriptive of the bubble universe model under chaotic eternal inflation. It actually arose as a solution to the runaway inflation problem that plagued earlier inflationary models. Once inflation starts one needs a mechanism to stop inflation. The slow roll parameters largely handle this in current inflationary models such as Higg's inflation. Here is a study of 74 different inflationary models that looks for the best matches to observational evidence, this article is continuously updated periodically or used to be at one time. The latest Planck data tends to favor single scalar field models with a low kinetic term https://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 This article usd to use chaotic eternal inflation as the benchmark best fit but lately its been a certain SM Higgs inflation (non supersymmetric) One needs to be careful here in order for two currently causal disconnected universes to be entangled they must have been in causal connection in the past prior to their inflationary rates causally disconnect the two bubble universes. One needs to be able to establish the correlation functions between the two

Excellent video, its extremely elegant in describing the measurement uncertainty of any wavefunction in terms of the Fourier transforms. The main point is that any wavefunction has inherent uncertainties that have nothing to do with observation interference. Particularly since all particle states in QM and QFT are indeed wavefunction typically simplified in representation to [latex]|\psi\rangle[/latex] believe me unless you have an intensive study merely describing how that is defined via the boson creation and annihilation operators is daunting at best. as you can see http://www.cithep.caltech.edu/~fcp/physics/quantumMechanics/secondQuantization/SecondQuantization.pdf the position and momentum are the operators used to define the creation and annihilation operators under QM so these formulas will be different than in QFT treatment. where the position operator is replaced with the field operator. The previous uses the Schrodinger equation while under QFT its the Klein Gordon equation (these are the two primary distinctive differences between QM and QFT FYI )

[latex]\feynmandiagram [horizontal=a to b] { i1 -- [fermion] a -- [fermion] i2, a -- [photon] b, f1 -- [fermion] b -- [fermion] f2, };[/latex] k Tikz doesn't work ah well https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1601/1601.05437.pdf [latex]\copyright [/latex]

Here Is a different approach to testing G "Precision Measurement of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant Using Cold Atoms" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.7954.pdf

Here is a relevent question to the OP, why do your results differ from those of the numerous professionally done in the last 35 years ? here is a listing of several of them with their values. see page 5 for a chart listing reference "Recent measurements of the gravitational constant as a function of time" https://arxiv.org/pdf/1505.01774.pdf took a bit to find a decent listing of recent tests though I am positive this is nowhere complete it does prove that G is constantly being examined to this day. So you really have your work cut out for you to make any kind of impression vs these examination and continuous experimentation. What you have shown thus far does not meet that standard.... (also one of the first rules when supplying test results is to describe the experimental setup...) as well as describe any uncertainties involved is such a setup. here is the particle data group listing that contains that chart in the quoted arxiv. This is an extremely lengthy and well brought together document that summarizes a huge range of findings. here is the abstract https://journals.aps.org/prd/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001 enjoy I'm positive you will find this incredibly useful

Down Periscope currently always enjoyed that show.

No worries very few layman grasp all the ramifications until they spend time studying on something I describe in the above manner. Here is a little hint though what I described is a homogeneous and isotropic scalar field. This is precisely the type of field that the cosmological constant matches in observational evidence and is modelled as such. Here is some handy study material specific to the cosmological constant. http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant"http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano Here is a handy analogy to understand how local mass ie a galaxy doesn't expand due to the cosmological constant. First ask yourself a question, why does the moon orbit the Earth and not the Sun whose mass far exceeds Earths mass? Well the simple answer is that local to the Earth (where the moon orbits, the gravitational field of the Earth is stronger than the Suns gravity. A similar thing occurs with galaxies, local to the mass of a galaxy, the gravitational force is stronger than the cosmological constant. The only areas that expand are in the voids between large scale structures. This is where gravity is too weak to counter it far far away from mass sources.

Unfortunately the majority of Speculation posts rarely ever get the science right...I highly enjoy the ones that do regardless of how unlikely the possibility is. In my personal view the threads I enjoy the most are the ones that the OP listens and learns from.

Here is a few handy rule of thumb, if your unsure of something ask it in a question mode. Don't hijack threads to do so however its best to create your own thread when asking questions unless its particular to the OPS post. If your answering questions make sure you can back up every answer you provide with a peer review source, believe me the number of times I've had to defend my answers over the years this is a crucial step. If you want to Speculate on a non mainstream (Ie found in textbooks) idea, start a thread but within the Speculation forum and be prepared to follow the guidelines. A good theorist wants people to blow holes into his idea, it saves him from years of work if someone can point out flaws that he cannot account for. One of those guidelines is never reply in another persons thread with your own speculation. I tend to take this one step further, to never reply with personal favourite models but reply with an answer you know you can find existing in a textbook.

I can honestly tell you the mods on this forum are far less rigid than many other forums I visit. On forums with less rigidity the posters run amock with all sorts of rules violations and a total lack of any actual science. I find this forum has a decent balance between enforcing the rules, and allowances depending on the nature of the posts. It is the primary reason this forum is my preferred choice.

you know I always find it amazing how many people declare others wrong simply because it doesn't agree with their misguided view, when all it takes is less than 30 seconds of a google search to show that the statement is accurate. Here is a set of references from that quick search. "Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[5][6] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems, that is, without changing something in a system. Heisenberg utilized such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[7] It has since become clearer, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[8] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[9] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[10][note 1] " https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle A little research on your part Itoero might be in order, you might just learn a few things. As I myself rarely trust wiki here is one of the peer reviewed studies it refers to (reference 8) https://arxiv.org/pdf/1208.0034v2.pdf

I've always found it useful ever since I came across it.

Perhaps you can do a better job answering questions, I for one see no reason you have presented not to use the following tables for fundamental constants including G https://arxiv.org/pdf/1507.07956.pdf

Excellent reply well thought out +1