Mordred

! Moderator Note I also see that he specified the topic belongs in the Speculations section of our forum. In that forum you will require the maths that I do not see in your paper. Your paper states it isn't important however it is. You will never change any mainstream theory without the preponderance of evidence. The mathematics is the tool to provide testable predictions. I will move this thread to Speculations where it rightly belongs. I would recommend you look directly at the vector relations under vector commutation rules that directly apply to the quadrupole tensor Here is some of the key aspects of that tensor https://web.pa.msu.edu/people/stump/EM/chap3/3ex3.pdf Try and resolve that without applying mathematics as your involving coordinates of the transverse and longitudinal components resolved under Cartesian coordinates see link for the mathematical process

How can time possibly experience time ? Why would you even think time must also experience time this makes no sense Time is simply a measure of rate of change, it is a property not some substance. Why do you feel you need to combine SR to GR ? SR is a special set of solutions under GR. They both use the Lorentz transforms the main significant difference is in GR all frames are inertial for example the Newton approximation [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/latex] this GR statement employs the Minkowskii tensor of SR

You probably do not realize that the relativistic Doppler shift involves the Lorentz transforms so by using Relativistic Doppler you are using length contraction and time dilation of the Lorentz transforms.

The Hubble Parameter is decreasing gradually over time, this involves the evolution of matter, radiation and cosmological mass density. For example at z=1090 the Hubble parameter is 22,916 times greater than it is today. It is a consequence of expansion and its influence upon density of the aforementioned contributors. You can see its evolution in the H_o/H column here [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 608.566&0.000979&0.001594&44.853035&0.073703&0.100794&14.843&9032.833\\ \hline 339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 189.701&0.006228&0.009680&43.263304&0.228060&0.314971&7.842&1487.678\\ \hline 105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 59.133&0.037266&0.056657&40.323472&0.681908&0.960718&4.298&254.163\\ \hline 33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 18.433&0.217283&0.327417&35.002842&1.898930&2.793361&2.386&43.981\\ \hline 10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 5.746&1.252327&1.874042&25.458852&4.430801&7.300157&1.337&7.684\\ \hline 3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 1.791&6.817286&9.184553&9.242569&5.160286&14.365254&0.875&1.568\\ \hline 1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.558&22.979870&16.668843&6.932899&12.417487&17.112278&1.547&0.864\\ \hline 0.338&31.510659&17.154169&10.671781&31.602098&17.220415&2.486&0.839\\ \hline 0.204&40.170941&17.267296&12.969607&63.498868&17.267296&4.083&0.834\\ \hline 0.124&48.860612&17.292739&14.364429&116.275356&17.292739&6.741&0.833\\ \hline 0.075&57.557046&17.298283&15.208769&203.541746&17.298283&11.141&0.832\\ \hline 0.045&66.254768&17.299620&15.719539&347.823873&17.299620&18.418&0.832\\ \hline 0.027&74.952986&17.299815&16.028491&586.370846&17.299815&30.451&0.832\\ \hline 0.017&83.651102&17.299968&16.215356&980.768127&17.299968&50.345&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] At the S=1.000 is the value today in normalized to 1 unit, the calculator is setup for a previous dataset from Planck I didn't bother changing the input parameters as I am simply demonstrating how Hubble constant evolves over time. The parameters in the left box is what determines the value of the Hubble constant. The [latex]H=\dot{a}{a}[/latex] of commoving volumes is merely an approximation. Not the methodology that is used by Planck or WMAP. I will get the more accurate formula later on after work.

we have energy to describe how much work a system or state can perform. Which is the definition of energy. (The ability to perform work). It takes work to change from a 1 to a zero on a computer for example.

GW waves can be used to gather information in much the same manner as EM radiation. The advantage is every object or particle in spacetime is affected, unlike EM which some particles do not interact with. It provides another resource of measurable interactions on all objects in our universe.

You wouldn't have a reference time to measure at so rather meaningless when comparing geometry change. The minute you choose a time to take a measurement it becomes a finite point in time. Obviously time is never ending under physics. The finite time is when you take a measurement.

I also use both depending on moods

Its one of many theories however not one I follow, I prefer LCDM and support the evidence of DE and DM in accordance. However as mentioned until proven otherwise...

There is two ways to describe a BB, the most common application is at 10^-43 seconds. However under chaotic eternal inflation you can get Hubble Bubbles that can be thought of as originating from their own BB events and treated as separate universes via causality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation "Eternal inflation is a hypothetical inflationary universe model, which is itself an outgrowth or extension of the Big Bang theory. According to eternal inflation, the inflationary phase of the universe's expansion lasts forever throughout most of the universe. Because the regions expand exponentially rapidly, most of the volume of the universe at any given time is inflating. Eternal inflation, therefore, produces a hypothetically infinite multiverse, in which only an insignificant fractal volume ends inflation." Myself I always preferred Higg's inflation however that is simply my opinion. Chaotic eternal is just as possible. It was originally designed to cover Runaway inflation (once inflation stops in the early treatments there was no way to turn it off.) however in modern terms this is handled through slow roll. However in science all viable theories are valid till proven invalid.

Curvature has a specific relation that is tricky to explain. Its not curvature as shape per se, but curvature of the geodesics of space-like and time-like geodesics. Null geodesics which is the geodesic of massless particles which define a world-line forms the ds^2 line element. A flat world-line the parallel transport of two light rays will remain parallel. With curvature those light-paths will either converge or diverge. It is literally the curve of geodesics which is called space-time curvature. In order to calculate the curvature you must look at how the fluid equations under the FRW metric affectnull geodesics or under GR the energy momentum stress tensor. (curvature requires a non zero tensor.). It would be pointless to apply a fractal to the possible paths of least resistance involved in worldliness unless you also plan on adding the weighted probability of the likelihood of probable paths. Certainly not via looking at shapes instead of world line curve fitting. Unless you are dealing directly with how it applies to the principle vectors such an example is as follows https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski–Bouligand_dimension

Think of them as different Hubble horizons as per chaotic eternal inflation.

In the manner your describing a particle, I have absolutely no idea. In QFT the particle is described by the Compton wavelength or Debroglie wavelength for the pointlike and wave characteristics. These have boundary conditions set my IR and UV cutoffs.

Lol have nothing to add to that excellent reply Janus except another up vote

Right each vacuum is its own field the quantum field is [latex]\rho_{vac}[/latex] this is based on zero point energy (QFT harmonic oscillator). [math]\Lambda[/math] is based on calc from commoving volume via critical density extrapolation over (a(t). Vacuums are specific to the fields being applied, for example the VeV Higg's (vacuum to vacuum) field involves a bosonic gauge and fermionic field interaction to determine. (goldstone bosons representing the guage). This later statement is telling. "That’s because the vacuum is not an eigenstate of the local energy density operator [math]T_{00}, although it is an eigenstate of the global Hamiltonian operator [math]H =\int Rd^3xT_{00}[/math]. This implies that the total vacuum energy all over the space is constant but its density fluctuates at individual points. " (key note to consider it mean lifetime is shortened under HuP so each fluctuation is incredibly short lived.)

In terms of time reversal symmetries of CPT I can't argue that, thanks for reminding me of that. Good catch my thanks

In QFT yes it follows the rules of GR and the Feymann Diagrams under the four momentum of GR and provides a weighted probability of the path of least resistance of the begin and end points of each leg and vertex of the Feymann path integrals. This is mapped as a 4D field in QFT, this is the main reason why QFT uses the Langrene and Hamilton of effective action. This doesn't get too intense into the math as its more a very simplified brief of the Feymann scattering rules (the math is far too intense to understand without significant study.) However it will give a rough (very overview). http://www.nhn.ou.edu/~pls/phys4-5213/fall_2007/sec_6-3&4_Abdellah.pdf Just an FYI for interest: I am oft seen enforcing definitions and terminology under physics, in particular being careful to pay attention to some property names. The MEAN lifetime of particles A and B in the scattering diagrams are probability functions the mean is the average lifetime which through the Dirac Delta function enforces the conservation laws of energy momentum for the vertex's and legs. The S-matrix handles the probabilities.

The model takes the likelihood of finding the particle as well as the likelihood of a scattering event occurring and upon the path taken. QM in general usually involves probability which makes sense to increasing the possible ranges and enhancing predictability. Once you measure something it is no longer probabilistic nor in superposition. So the properties we have determined for a property such as its mass or spin is determined and not probabilistic however the state can be in superposition until measured.

see mod-note above. However I definitely support mainstream physics as well described by both Newtonian and GR. For very good reason.

Tom your disbelief in relativity has nothing to compare to the experimental evidence of its accuracy. It is one of the most strongly tested theories out there despite your lack of evidence to the contrary. Quite frankly if you ever bothered to think about it under Newtonian physics a freely falling object the mass term of the falling body cancels out and does not depend on its mass or composition. Basic Newtonian physics describes the same thing for a falling body...

To add to Strange comment time is treated as an interval that is given units of length via the ct coordinate. This allows us to graph time as a vector with which the vector length can contract due to the Lorentz transforms. ie length contraction which affects both the length scale of the x and ct axis. The main term dimension as Strange mentioned is an independent variable. Ie a variable that can change without affecting any other variable in an equation. The spatial dimensions qualify but they are not the only possible independent variables/dimensions in an equation. Not all dimensions are spatial, they are simply the most commonly known examples. The key is the math definition of dimension as an independent variable.

Well it would be nice to find right hand Neutrinos as the neutrino has mass the chirality would not be the same as helicity as it is for massless particles. Right hand neutrinos is one of the contenders for DM which would definitely help solve that problem. If this borns out to be true then we will also approach a means to help explain leptogenesis.

A fact is arbitrary to the level of understanding. Facts can change as understandings improve but yes it agrees with current experimental evidence.

If by real you mean measurable then yes. Physics doesn't have a definement for real we leave that to metaphysics.

What the QFT defines as the electron in terms of the Operators involved under spinor and vector quantities will transfer. The values of the field will change locality