Mordred

Start with 4.1 Thermodynamical Distributions he later gives baryonic density at [latex] \Omega\le 0.18[/latex] 4.1.13 he discusses the Fermi Dirac statistics but neither here nor there I found an easier way https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background see equation in the indirect evidence of neutrino background It is a derivative from the Maxwell Botzmann specific to neutrinos.

Baryonic density will not stay constant but its typically felt the particle number is roughly constant so at short time scales well after nucleosynthesis it would be a reasonable approximation. See chapters 3 and 4 of this article for the Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac /Maxwell Botzmann statistics application. These statistics can calculate the number density of any SM particle with known quantum properties at given blackbody temperature http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis. If I recall correctly he demonstrates how to use this on the neutrino family

Are you specifically looking for the density of neutrinos at a given scale factor ? The cosmological constant density stays constant but the matter density (including DM) will scale at [latex]\Omega_m(1+z)^3[/latex] where radiation scales at [latex] \Omega_(1+z)^4[/latex] the cosmological constant remains at the same energy density throughout. It is a constant. If your goal is specifically the number density of neutrinos the methodology gets rather clunky in calculations using the Maxwell Boltzmann statistics this will correlate its temperature contributions at a given blackbody temperature with the temperature scaling at [latex] 1/a[/latex] Though the Stretch column in the calculator in my signature is identical in this ratio as stretch is also the inverse of the scale factor.

I'm going to quote a section from an article entitled "The Standard Model of particle physics" by Uwe-Jens Weise. I always liked his writing style and have studied numerous of his papers. However that aside he has an excellent section on this on pages 16 and 17 Here is the article. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/standard.pdf lol I just came across it looking for a decent reference. So now I am going to study this document myself (its always a good practice to keep studying regardless of how well one already knows a given subject ) much as my wife hates it lol. As an aside benefit it helps me find better ways to assist in explaining physics to others (one of the talents the Author has in his writing style)

I don't believe he stated time doesn't exist, it certainly does just not under how you chose to describe time in your locked thread. I have removed the negative point as it is undeserving in the last post by Beecee. ( I don't agree with it so I up voted it )

Here is a piece of advice to learn some relevant math, Use your guides you made to understand Euler angles and pursue that to the spinor representations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler_angles You may have the technique that suits you via visual aids, however a good mathematician can just as readily describe the dynamics of your tool. I wouldn't knock the power of mathematical representations they are powerful tools in studying dynamics. Mathematics is a key fundamental language in physics for just this very reason. If you truly study it you can gain just as much trust in it as any object you can hold onto.

Adios amigo, Beecee covered the remainder although you must admit there was plenty of strong hints that more was required in way of replies. This site does have its rules and those are posted for everyone to read this includes those pertaining to the speculation forum. Choosing to leave on the basis that a moderator was required to enforce said posted rules is a personal choice that does not reflect upon the moderators enforcing those rules.

If you wish to challenge the standard model on this forum you had best read the forum rules and guidelines and start producing its requirement of rigorous treatment in particular the applicable mathematics.

LOL I created a monster... Unfortunately I do not have the pdf I got that formula from, I had a copy of the original pdf on my phone which I had lost a while back but had the equation written down. Lately I decided to break it down to identify the various terms in the equation and see how encompassing it is. Here is what I have thus far. I will simply cut and paste what I have however keep in mind much of it will be in a note to myself format including related formulas. (in a real sense personal study notes) lol I screwed up on the quote section ah well the details are there. Anyways in a sense I have been trying to in essence reverse engineer the equation. Some of the links you have posted may come in handy in my endeavor I have to agree with this, in so far as to locating any proof for the equation itself.

Well unfortunately even the term field is an abstract object, as you also noted correctly. Many of us get stuck on the macroscopic way of thinking. This includes solidity, myself I tend to try to ignore anything other than how we can describe our universe in terms of relations. Those relations naturally including attraction and repulsion ie charge though charge is a type of attraction/repulsion not the full group. One of the easiest ways though to understand all the numerous physics fields is to study the "action" which equates displacement to the relations between potential and kinetic energy. Measurable effects being defined by Operators example the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The propagators handle the momentum terms on particle scatterings this group corresponds to the vector gauge bosons. (internal lines on a Feymann diagram. ) When you step this up to many particle systems such as fields it gives you a very accurate picture. Every interaction can be described under action so it encompasses all physics theories in general including string theory, QFT, QED, quantum geometrodynamics, LQC etc etc... Solely to provide a better picture of what I mean the entire body of standard model of particles including Higg's can be described under the following though this formula is FAR more complex in all the matrix's, tensors and spinors truly involved. [latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] I've spend nearly 3 months just trying to extrapolate all the relevent relations that went into this formula and am still working on it. For the record its not a personal formula I came across it a year or so ago in a University lecture note but cannot find the original pdf. Though that pdf only referred to but didn't explain the formula above. Currently working on the CKM mixing angles in regards to neutrino mixings atm. LOL there was a similar formula in a Sean Carroll video on QFT and Higg's field posted awhile back in the quantum mechanics forum. However this is off topic to this thread. Here is the video the formula is at 49 minutes into the video however you have already watched it hehe. You were the original poster Notice the first page very apt descriptive... two key words of strong note. Observable possibilities takes into account the probability nature of wave functions.

I once had a lengthy argument on another forum in a thread on Unruh radiation with regards to the physicality of horizons. Its a common misconception to equate physical to materials or substances.

Why would they make distinctions between TC and TR when this is your terminology ? How would you test the difference ? Your the only one that believes there is a difference so provide a feasible test to prove your theory. While your at it provide a test for time flow.... Your the only poster who feels that what we measure in terms of time as a rate of change is different than some mysterious and hidden time ie in your terms TR. Now I am going to confuse you a bit, (probably more than a bit) physics does recognize Observer effects upon how we measure time. So we do have an established distinction relating to different observers under General relativity and Special relativity. those two distinctions is proper time and coordinate time. However both have specific mathematical properties to distinguish one from the other. Proper time is time shown by a hypothetical clock that follows the world line between two events. This involves a specific inertial reference frame (in essence a Euclidean frame, oft described as the at rest frame) this is a distinction from the SR treatment in that the Observer is always set as the at rest frame where each event can be an observer or event depending on arbitrary choice. This however is not what you are describing in your model so the onus is yours to properly define each under some testable basis. Coordinate time is a mathematical construct it can never be measured it can only be calculated from the Lorentz transformation rules as it describes the relationship between Einstein clock synchronization and proper time so it is strictly a mathematical (ONLY) object. The kicker of GR is that proper time varies from one locale to the next or as a property of velocity (study SR for details) however to save you some effort here is a good write up on the two http://web.mit.edu/edbert/Alexandria/notes1.pdf

I don't think that is adequate either, the size of different regions that process certain senses such as smell etc also vary in size depending on how critical that sense is to the animals survival. Brain size is a poor measure of a creatures ability to problem solve, as much of the brain is used in other processes such as senses.

I'm not sure how your getting mocking, as I only see the three of us involved in this thread. I look forward to the net installation, not that I ever concern myself too much in philosophical debates lmao. That is one topic I have little skill in, its still a good exercise to compare the ramifications equations can have in how we interpret them. For one thing I'm still uncertain how to distinguish a circular logic from a math equation in terms of the LHS and RHS of an equal sign. Hence my questioning the fallacy requirement earlier. Considering physics never assumes something as being absolutely true how does one distinguish the assumption basis ? Granted in this case we certainly have enough evidence supporting the three laws of inertia that one can safely assume a high degree of accuracy. However on a philosophical basis is this ever sufficient ? suffice it to say I am uncertain as to when an argument becomes a circular argument in terms of numerous math expressions if applicable in this case.

It would be a wild guess, if anything impedes its progress though its unlikely to encounter another galaxy let alone another LSS or supercluster. However as none of us have the information on its flight path etc we would only be guessing...

Careful here, rate of change is a physical property of a state. The term physical does not only mean materialistic or corpuscular.

well here is one question I know would be impossible to answer. Lets for a second assume a time particle exists. How can a time particle have a mean lifetime? How would it have a velocity ? How can it possibly have a rate of reactions with other particles ? Sounds like contradictions to me lmao How can a time particle have any property that requires a time parameter to describe ? Anyways the idea of time flow or a time particle would only lead to further questions that most likely can never be adequately answered. It doesn't take much imagination to come up with those questions. With time flow one can ask how much pressure does this time flow cause, or what determines the direction of the flow ? What is the rate of flow ? What determines its flow rate ? Obviously I can go on and on with numerous questions. Suffice it to say there are numerous properties that are involved with the term flow (flow describes a mean vector/direction) that isn't inherent in a uniform scalar (magnitude only) distribution. side note How can one define the vector length of a flowing time field under graph ? I'd like to see the OP answer that lmao

It is also the language that allows us to make predictions of numerous dynamics, and test those predictions via measurement. Physics would be useless without mathematics. Words themselves are too easily misunderstood, a descriptive in words in a great deal many theories are often misleading to those not familiar with a given theory etc. As you mentioned the mathematics is far more concise and clear to those that spend the time studying the mathematics of a theory.

This is where he mentions the time particle idea however as you stated there is no time particle in mainstream physics

No need to include the word movement when that term is representable with a vector. I don't make things up, that appears to be your arena considering your now mentioning a time particle lmao....particle half life rates do not require movement how do you account for that as it is definitely change occurring under an interval of time. the qualifier you mentioned only describes certain changes (positional) however not all change requires a change in position. Why would you believe you require a time particle to describe change ? Not all change requires a force to exert that change. The problem is that your trying to make up a substance to give time a materialistic quality. Your going to need far far greater evidence than anything posted in this thread for that. That is your hang-up along with the whole time flowing which is yet another descriptive of some substance like medium. Physics does not describe time in these terms. I still have yet to see anything you've stated to convince me or anyone else your ideas are correct. Is this all the support you have for your conjectures ?

Interesting article and find, here is the arxiv pdf on the finding. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1611.05501.pdf

Isn't there supposed to be a logical fallacy inherent in a circular logic ? If I understand circular logic correctly its a form of logical fallacy one based upon an assumption in many cases ie if A is true then B must be true. Where it is assumed A is true I would be curious how one would find a logical fallacy in Newton's laws of inertia.

There is a mathematical representation of the three laws that may come in help. Newtons first law: where r is a position vector. [latex] u=\frac{dr}{dt}=constant[/latex] can be simply expressed free particles move with constant inertia or velocity. This law restricts the reference frame to be non accelerating hence an inertial frame. Newtons second law : the acceleration [latex] a=\frac{du}{dt}[/latex] is proportional to the force (F) exerted upon it [latex] F=m_i\frac{du}{dt}[/latex] where m_i is the inertial mass. Newtons third law if particle 1 acts upon particle 2 the particle 2 acts upon particle 1 [latex] F_{21}=F_{-12}[/latex] a reference to these can be found in Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity by Øyvind Grøn and Sigbjørn Hervik pages 3 and 4. I particularly liked this example as it expresses Newtons laws in a simple mathematical format. It also follows a key postulate under GR in that all reference frames are inertial.

This is what I specifically will address, in the first descriptive "time flow fallacy" time as flowing is never a physics descriptive. Physics is a mathematical language. The truth is a true physicist will choose a descriptive of one of scalar and vector quantities in numereous symmetric relations. In time relations those vector or scalar changes will have a given rate. All forms of change will have a change in rate. The change doesn't always follow vector quantities although we can apply such under a change in math treatment. Just change the graph coordinates...However I personally after 35 years of studying physics have never come across a single VALID theory under physics which does not involve validating a given theory without those symmetries described above given in explicit detail. (scalar, vector quantities and ratios of change between them). Now time enters the picture of the Rate of change in the above quantities . One of the best and straight forward definitions of time is the rate of change or duration however if the duration is infinite or beyond measurement then one cannot describe a give interval. The flow of time is a substitute descriptive to a rate of change in a given vector directional symmetry. this is often under group associated with a change in sign - or +. However lets be clear its a way to describe mathematical ratios of change of a vector to a public that never wants the math lmao. This isn't what the math describes, it is how we describe the math the math itself is what is important as it provides the tools to test and predict, not the descriptive's that this thread is hung up upon. For example a flowing body of matter will have other directional vector components of force. So the term of flow isn't appropriate as a flow has force like terms that are not inherent in simply a directional vector under graph. Treat time as simply a quantity (property) we Quantify, and qualify as the rate of change in either a vector or scalar value that describes a rate of change the vector descriptive's simply utilizes the directional component of a given quantities change, dependant upon the examination. A very common misconception is thinking all vectors represent motion. This causes far too much confusion, when the truth is its a vector under graph treatment. the terminology : Flow implies a directional component hence describable under math as a vector.

I almost pissed myself laughing so hard at this statement. seriously though the others have already mentioned the complete lack of any valid physics in any of the OP post. So I won't add anymore clutter to them at this time. I probably will after I see the OP's reply however quite frankly I don't even want to use the terminology that the OP has used.... Simply too subjective to utter ridicule... However that being said this thread is just another thread of a TOE that exhibits all the classical symptoms of not knowing what a TOE needs to address. Starting with a complete lack of any mathematics so zero ability to make predictions of particle behavior for testability. For example the Standard model can predict particle scattering events, and state which particles can form from those incoming particles. I see nothing in the above that can address this critical need in a TOE.