Mordred

correct an under mathematics a dimension is any independent variable. All coordinate axis are independent in that you can change any coordinate value without affecting other coordinate values.

That's really the kicker we can only measure the rate of change and compare different rates of change. One can literally throw away the word time which is just a convenient label and simply describe the rate of change in any process. Another common misconception is thinking time controls rate of change. Time isn't a force or substance that can directly influence anything.

Time is simply a measure of rate of change of events or duration it isn't a substance or material that flows. Quick simple and easy... Under relativity how one measures the rate of change will depend on the observer measuring the event. All too often people like to think of time as more than a property of a system or state. It is simply a measure of rate or duration. The Universe itself doesn't care how we measure or describe it. Time will continue without our measurements, as change will always occur. How we describe rate of change is irrelevant to the process undergoing change.

I've just described some very essential missing parts

I have another way to supply a direction to identifying the properties of your QP to your thread. I mentioned spin above, Swansont has also asked about the spin. Why is this important, well the spin also determines the helicity of the particle in regards to its direction of momentum. Depending on the spin we can start to determine the properties of the field itself. I gave an example for spin 0 particles, the inflaton (quasi particle) Higg's Boson are two examples. This is an uncharged field this means there is no average directional motion to the multi-particle system. Another type of field is a charged field, an example is the EM radiation, this is a field with two charges where each charge induces two vector average directions this equates to spin [latex]\pm\frac{1}{2}[/latex]. Now in the case of the strong force and weak force this get more complex as they have color charges 3 per field. So spin vs charge isn't so easily matched. However it is possible to describe all three fields with spin 1/2 fields. This is where gauge theories and symmetry comes in handy... Gravity however isn't as easy. Gravity only attracts it does not repel and as a consequence of its connection to spacetime itself has a unique spin. Spin 2. So when we ask these questions it isn't to be difficult. However following the above, they are extremely important questions in order to determine how your model may behave All bosons except gravity and the Higg's has spin 1. Graviton (theorized has spin 2) while Higg's spin 0. (Warning do not equate particle spin as a ball or top spinning. The term spin specifically deals with the symmetry relations of complex spinors. A spinor is not a vector it merely has properties that seem vector like however how they transform does not follow vector commutation rules.) For example a spin 1/2 particle has a 720 degree polarity rotation before restoring to its original polarity. A ball or top only has 360 degrees. three commonly used types used in quantum theories are Hermitian, Dirac, Weyl and Majarona spinors. All three work with spin 1/2 fermions. However using a symmetry gauge group methodology we can pair any two spinors of the same type to describe spin 1. [latex] SO(4)=SU(2)\otimes SU(2)[/latex] which can be further broken down to its U(1) components. (as I often do I post useful tidbits to other readers other than the OP) another distinction is that a spinor can have two or more components. Though the two common types are 2 and 4 components. Whereas a vector has two, (length of vector and direction) the length is the magnitude (scalar value)

Alright lets provide a starting point. Lets start with a scalar field of quantum particles. We don't know anything more about these particles in how they interact to go any further than this. We have no degrees of freedom to correlate to any of the quantum numbers nor do we know their interactions with other particles. I will warn you this is a typical (very common application of quantum particles) it is the basis formula for a majority of inflationary models. Obviously you have described dynamics that will not match but we have to start somewhere.... For an uncharged scalar field of quantum particles we can apply the scalar modelling formula [latex]w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2-V(\phi)}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\phi}^2+V(\phi)}[/latex] without further detail I can take this no further to distinguish this model from the literally thousands of models that have a quantum vacuum beginning.... details needed is which forces does it interact with. What spin does the particle have (the formula I posted only uses spin 0) Spin 0=a scalar field. Does it have an antiparticle pair ? In case your thinking all particles do google Neutrino in so far as we have yet to find the right hand neutrino though the models predict they should exist. What field interactions result in the QP creation ? Particles don't simply pop into existence without a reason, they require energy (ability to perform work) this can result from field anisotropies.

You really haven't described enough for another person to possibly run numbers for you on... The use of quantum particles isn't unusual for BB models, the early inflationary models used just that. One such type is the theorized inflaton of the chaotic eternal inflation. However in all cases those QP are mathematically defined. In your case it sounds like you have multiple species of quantum particles. Physicists don't like infinities either hence the BB model only describes [latex]10^{43)[/latex] seconds after the BB as any attempts prior lead to infinite quantities. Unless some cut-off is applied such as minimal Planck length. I do recommend trying again to study current models first and foremost. You can take it from my personal experience that the manner physicists describe our universe has far more methodology and is rather highly logical once you learn to fully understand those models. It is very common for people to want to skip this learning stage and try to reinvent physics to match their way of thinking. I would actually average this to well over 50% of everyone that first starts learning cosmology tends to want to skip the learning to reinvent stage. Anyways as mentioned you need to better define your QP as a start, no one can run numbers based on the descriptives thus far.

As the remainder of the model requires addressing the above questions I will wait before adding more. Though from what I read above the presence of QP in the above don't define the space they reside in it.

Quartz crystals has piezoelectric properties due to its electric dipole structure. Quartz has a natural structure however many ceramics can be manmade. The frequency of resonance is determined by the same structure. However different frequencies can be generated by different dipole arrangements. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piezoelectricity

Its always good science to keep re-examining every possibility, another way of detecting medium like properties is to examine dispersion of the various wavelengths via Snell's law. In this regard spectrograph data is a useful tool. Its another commonly examined factor. Anytime you see a paper that mentions mass to luminosity relations this is in essence what is being examined. As mentioned in other threads I often tell others to look closely at the terminology. The term mass being a very misunderstood term. Its original meaning has never changed. Resistance to inertia change. A quantum vacuum such as the paper above is really describing this resistance to a medium like property in the same manner as the mass to luminosity relation does. As massless particles has no resistance to inertia change the examination is more into a study of the properties of the quantum vacuum and its influence on scatterings. The above directly applies to one way light is influenced by the presence of mass of galaxies and BH's. This mass to luminosity relations is one of the reasons that led Zwicky to discover the missing mass in galaxy rotation curves. It is literally how one can use light and its frequencies to measure mass. However one has to realize that particles aren't billiard balls bouncing off one another as well. Here is a little secret to a methodology to understand the entirety of physics. Every force type field ie gravity, EM, strong, weak. Has a common method of describing all its interactions. This common methodology is through action which correlates the potential energy and kinetic energy relations to the displacement of values on a described field geometry. Every field has its own mass terms potential energy is a mass term. The bosons of these fields are typically massless vector gauge bosons. Photons for EM. side note the physical constant is the value c, massless particles such as photons (light) simply obey this constant. One can prove the speed limit without using light. edit: I decided to grab an example to show where Lorentz contraction is applied in luminosity measure. See equation 20 with regards to this paper "Luminosity measures and Calculations"

The average mass density of the universe outside a galaxy equates to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter, inside a galaxy if I recall is approximately 15 protons. In essence extremely close to a vacuum condition. As mentioned we find ways to test the speed of light in a vacuum. One of the tests is to use parallax to measure distance where applicable and another variant called intergalactic parallax. This also allows testing of the accuracy of the redshift formulas, so its an important study that is continuously ongoing.

During my 5 year term as a shipwright, I had a year working on diesel subs. Its amazing how cramped they truly are. The structural engineering designs taught me a lesson I took to heart. Every structural member that has a sharp corner is a stress point. In submarines this is strongly applied. For each joint is designed as rounded as possible in radius as that shape distributes mechanical stresses more readily. No welding or drilling beyond engineered design was permitted. Anyways that being said, you raised an extremely important strong point in engineering design as to hull deign to active employment design. In particular combat readiness but also stealth. You'd be amazed at the science that goes into silencing the noise a sub makes is involved in the design. A strong aspect being turbulence with the hull. However cylindrical isn't the greatest for surface stability and cutting through waves nor turn radius.

A hull designed to run on the surface is also a design that incorporates lifting the craft as high upon the surface to decrease drag. A design that spends most of its time under water will design the bow to slice through the water on all surface areas. Where as the first design would focus on the lower portion of the craft. Secondly in both cases one can use the backflow reaction of the water from the turbulence curling back upon its rear to which creates a region of high pressure much like how a sail allows certain angles towards the wind direction. Also placement of the propeller would vary in location the surface design can be closer to the keel. edit: In all cases for all types of water craft the hull design is a critical factor for speed. x-posted while in edit

I would think that the design of the hull itself is a more relevant factor than the type of engine that propels the sub. The overall designs of each type may significantly differ. In particular the shape of the Bow is important in this case as one main factor. If the bow design is more aerodynamic in so far as better suited to slice through water while submerged as opposed to the surface. Diesel subs spend more time on the surface so the bow is designed to the surface for average travel speed. While a nuclear sub can stay submerged for far longer periods and the bow and hull design takes this into consideration.

Here is the thread I mentioned you may find it useful https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/106004-useful-fundamental-formulas-of-qft/ An easier visualization tool is to use a Feymann diagram the squiggly internal line is a VP oft called a field fluctuation. A VP is not an observable as per the link above. The external lines are observables or oft described as real particles though under QFT is a field excitation. [math]\array{e^+ \searrow &&\nearrow P^-\\&\leadsto &\\ e^-\nearrow &&\searrow P^+}[/math]

Quantum fluctuations can contribute but isn't a major player. One has to get in depth on the distinction between a fluctuation or an excitation. A particle is often described as a localized field excitation under QFT treatments the fluctuations are often associated with virtual particles. Though that is an oversimplification under field treatments. This will be easier to explain if I pull up an older thread give me a minute to track it down.

lets take the 2 microsecond decay rate this is actually just an average decay rate. That muon could take longer or decay quicker than the average. A mean lifetime of a given particle is a statistical average.

Once you measure something it is determined. The probabilities of superposition for example are predetermined probability states. QM as a theory tries to predict ALL possible outcomes and more specifically the likely hood of a given result. This makes QM a robust science as it can take into account a wide range of possible results. However this isn't unique to QM or QFT, even relativity involves probability in terms of possible particle spacetime paths to a certain degree. Needless to say statistical analysis is a vital part of any physics theory. It provides a greater range of predictability

Well using Bells theory to disprove determinism is more in line with a metaphysics argument. My experience with metaphysics is they tend to ignore the mathematics of any model they describe....

No there is two detectors in the Bell experiment. when you measure one particle at spin up you know the other particle MUST be spin down. There is no time reversal involved. The muon decay is a different thread see my answer there

Stange is correct in order for any particle decay to occur there must be a particle that the conservation of energy/momentum, charge, isospin color, flavor, parity etc allow. When a particle decays it must decay into another particle that satisfies those conservation laws. This is one reason why certain particles do not decay in the lifetime of our universe. There is no particle that satisfies those conservation laws for that particle to decay into. I know this article will be beyond the majority of the readers, however It does demonstrate that the conservation laws are applied to decay rates in this paper it specifically mentions the lepton number conservation law being applied in the papers study. http://pdg.lbl.gov/2018/reviews/rpp2018-rev-muon-decay-params.pdf see introductory

I have a very high confidence that the possibility of a faster than light interaction is not the correct answer. Let me explain a few details not mentioned thus far. First off the entangled particles have already interacted with each other prior to being measured. They did so the instance they became entangled. This entanglement determines the probability of possible outcomes which is a correlation function ( another statistical term.) In the case of spin 1/2 particles such as electrons there is only two possible states spin up or spin down. However there is also a process called conservation of isospin and charge that is involved ( though all conservation laws apply in any particle interaction). All conservation laws must be obeyed on any particle interaction. This determines that the entangled pairs must be of opposite polarity. So when you measure one you automatically know the result of the other. The particles do not need to communicate or have any cause and effect at the time of the measurement. The initial interaction when they initially got entangled is sufficient. The other probability functions relate to how often a stream of entangled particles on multiple sampling will align with a given detector. So different detector apparatus will have their own probabilities according to the individual experiment set up. Once again no FTL is required or needed. Neither is a hidden variable required to make accurate probability predictions

I know it often does to me as well, I also tend to discard any article that attempts to preach self greatness. ( not directed at this article in particular ). This isn't the sort of paper that holds any interest to me however found myself agreeing with the quoted section

LOl another bad habit of mine is I tend to either oversimplify or get too complex. Good point to be noted here and quite accurate.

well answered +1