Mordred

All advanced theories must be reducible and correspond to classical laws. This is the Principle of correspondence. X posted with Strange.

Yes that is a simplified way of describing it.

Your really not getting it, the term particle is a misnomer under QFT. This is specifically what the Hobson paper talks about. Hence its very title in the paper. There are no Particles, there is only fields.. Under QFT the coulomb force is described as the flow of polarization vectors

It might help if you think of the Triboelectric effect as a exchange of charge not an exchange of electrons, There is a distinction, for example in a wire the flow of electrons is slow but the flow of charge is at c. The flow of charge is described by polarizations here is a basic classical article on how electrostatics work when the electric field is treated as a VECTOR Field. Noted in article. http://www.phys.ufl.edu/~korytov/phy2049/old_notes/all_chapters.pdf I also hope the Hobson paper taught you to not think of particles as a material ie corpuscular little bullets.... Solid is an illusion this is a needed shift in thinking to understand modern treatments of particles. The term particle is maintained for historical reasons but often leads to the incorrect images of what is described as a particle. This is one of the issues the Hobson paper addresses.

Isn't the question of the vacuum catastrophe specifically "Why is the cosmological constant so small while the quantum Vacuum so large ?" I fail to see how this addresses that question. In our other thread I posted the following article, He shows a very accurate examination addressing this question. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.00543.pdf What you need to consider is the Cosmological constant is a macro size scale while the quantum vacuum is at the quantum scale the fluctuations occur at each coordinate in the latter case, where the cosmological constant is an average over a macro volume. In effect the former is smeared out on the macro scale.

Butch your graphs will not work as your trying to apply them. The reason is simple Gravity is the geometry itself. You must apply a change of a coordinate axis ie the x axis with the length contraction so your units themselves are affected. Also under GR gravity is a freefall metric so you need to apply inertia under the vector addition rules and the relativistic vector addition rules. The methodology you are trying to use is simply wrong. Try studying spacetime diagrams under SR and learn how it models time dilation due to gravity before attempting to invent your own. Currently your following a garden path through a maze of incorrect conjectures and methodologies. For example and I know this may lose you but there is no choice a GW wave is represented by the following. [latex] g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}[/latex] each term is a geometry in and of itself they have a defined length of each unit of a graph ie the x and y coordinates. A transformation is how one describes the change between one graph to another graph. Specifically how each coordinate axis and length between coordinate units vary due to gravity. It isn't a waveform that is applied to a graph because the graph coordinates itself that changes

Well please recall all fields are abstract mathematical tools under a geometry treatment. In QFT the fields are probabilistic oriented. It represents the likely hood of a particle being created at one coordinate and annihilated at another coordinate. The likelihood is a Feymann path integral treatment of all possible spacetime paths. This would normally be an infinite quantity as there is always an infinite number of possible paths between two coordinates, however one applies a weighted boundary of the most likely paths described by the paths of least resistance under the Action principle. However the field will be continuous with the highest probability being the higher amplitudes in the set of real numbers ie positive integers, more precisely the square of the amplitude which under maths would ensure the probability is a positive integer. Each particle would involve its own field which is infinite in extent however that involves the infinite possible paths with which we compactify into a probabilistic finite probabilitiy weighted potential region. Terms such as UV and IR cutoffs and Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries are part of this compactification. The particle will be contained within a probabilistic potential well defined by the effective cutoffs. Until a measurement is taken the field is a superposition state defined by the Klein Gordon equation or rather the Dirac equations which takes into consideration anti particles which when you square the amplitude gives a positive probability as opposed to the Schrodinger equation which isn't Lorentz invariant. Hope this helps rather than confuse however your question isn't easily answered and maintain accuracy when describing how QFT defines a field

An excitation can be described as a discrete finite state. One example would be a signal such as a sine wave with begin and end points that renormalizes to the baseline field value. Once it loses and reconnects to the baseline value you now have a definable signal begin and end points. Another example would be a spike in a signal which re-establishes to the baseline. In all cases you must have a finite portion with definable beginning and end points. Now think of that in terms of a quanta, this is finite frequencies they are finite in the allowable frequency values and not continuous over all frequencies in a given range. A signal that is never stable ie always changing values between samplings is a fluctuation signal ie constantly changing. Example continuous wavefunction. The harmonic oscillator of QM is an example of a probabilistic fluctuation ie the uncertainty principle.

More accurately in QFT interactions can involve both pointlike and wavelike characteristics and under QFT treatment in essence the particle and the field is one and the same ie the particle is an excited localized state of the field itself. However the above is accurate but its better to recognize the distinction between QM and QFT in QM the particle is the priori but in QFT the field is of greater significance whereas the particle is a state caused by the field

Correct section 0.2 has a simplified explanation in the link above, see section 0.2. Section 0.4 has a more complete example of the mixing by giving an example of the two flavor oscillations under the mathematical treatment.

Neutrino oscillations are oscillations of the mass term and the flavor eugenstates. In essence a neutrino can be emitted as one flavor but oscillate to another flavor eugenstate. This involves the neutrino mixing matrix MNS which I won't attempt to latex the form of lol. However in essence it is a series of phase changes involving the mass eugenstates and the flavor eugenstates. Here is a simpler article than many I have read in the past covering this. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/staff/academic/boyd/stuff/lec_oscillations.pdf

All particles are treated as an excited state of an underlying field in QFT treatments hence they are field quanta. This includes the electron. In point of detail you can literally read entire QFT textbooks and not once come across the term particle. Wave packet is suitable. QFT has a rather different view of a particle, one of the better definitions I've run across is a single-quantum asymptotic free Fock state of a quantum field. The trick is the probability of locating an electron or rather the quantized fock state that we identify as an electron is smeared over all of the field, the highest probability of finding that state is the field excitation. This is what Hobson is referring to in his "There are no particles there is only fields" article. This will help out a bit on Fock spaces and the single and multiparticle states https://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bds10/tp3/secqu.pdf

Why would the triboelectric effect have any meaning concerning the size of an electron ? The scattering Markus referred to is the Compton scattering this is the probability of a particles locations which is scattered by the photon whose mass must be also be sufficient to cause an electron to be scattered. No matter how much energy we have experimentally used, we have not been able to determine the size or radius of an electron. It is from all experimental evidence literally pointlike, which is such an infinitesimal length that size becomes meaningless. Care must be taken in the term quanta however. A quanta of action for example requires displacement from one coordinate to another a quanta of action under QFT is a measureable event ie specifically Observable. The field in QFT is upgraded to an operator but under QM is a propagator as the two operators in QM are position and momentum.

Far Far more evidence for expansion than just redshift. Thermodynamics and the changes in Blackbody temperature of the CMB as well as the CMB itself for two other pieces of evidence. Icarus its obvious you never took the time to understand the FLRW metric in the first place and it is apparent you simply copied the equations you refer to without understanding any meaning behind those equations. Specifically those involving the FLRW metric system. For example the FLRW metric has no Centre or preferred location of the universe. This lack of understanding is apparent in your usage of Newtons gravitational force equation which describes specifically a central potential force that you have been misapplying in every stage of your model. Your simulated images are a clear sign of this misapplication and as you can see you have a higher density towards the centre. However measurements in Cosmology does not show the same distribution. The CMB for example is incredibly uniform in mass distribution and all measurements of our universe matches a uniform mass distribution. The below images look nothing like what we actually observe in Cosmology..... I can pretty much quarantee you will follow the precise same pattern and ignore any comments or questions that compete against your model. As you have yet to address any of those questions. For example the repeated question. How can you have a positive energy density but a negative mass ? Will you ever address this key and important question ? Hubble's law is simple but it does not calculate proper distances. It calculates the recessive velocity which isn't a true velocity but an apparent (illusional) velocity based on separation distance. "The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity." [latex] V_{resessive}=H_0D[/latex] That is all Hubbles law states. Note this is not the true velocity of any galaxy but simply represents the apparent velocity. Every galaxy has roughly the same velocity as the Milky way. No galaxy has a true velocity greater than c. The greater than c recessive velocity past Hubble horizon isn't a true inertial velocity. Your model cannot calculate the proper distance to any object in space while the FLRW metric can. It cannot calculate how temperature and pressure evolve not predict expansion contraction rates. In other words it cannot predict everything that the FLRW metric can. Here is a clear demonstration of the terms that the FLRW metric can calculate. [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 a=1/S&S&z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&V_{now}/c&V_{then}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&1089.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&739.062&738.062&0.000713&0.001172&45.031283&0.060930&0.083238&0.001668&16.621&3.127&51.977&12283.974\\ \hline 0.002&501.112&500.112&0.001342&0.002163&44.653685&0.089109&0.122010&0.003214&13.287&3.101&41.203&6658.325\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&230.379&229.379&0.004601&0.007192&43.602350&0.189264&0.260828&0.011554&8.691&3.028&26.316&2002.235\\ \hline 0.006&156.206&155.206&0.008416&0.013015&42.887747&0.274559&0.380106&0.021616&7.083&2.978&21.095&1106.404\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.014&71.813&70.813&0.027726&0.042257&40.943206&0.570134&0.799715&0.074095&4.745&2.843&13.492&340.773\\ \hline 0.021&48.692&47.692&0.050056&0.075939&39.639382&0.814081&1.152677&0.136056&3.894&2.753&10.720&189.626\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.045&22.386&21.386&0.162117&0.244527&36.119894&1.613538&2.350040&0.453165&2.631&2.508&6.599&58.889\\ \hline 0.066&15.178&14.178&0.291145&0.438335&33.771262&2.224979&3.311204&0.823085&2.164&2.345&5.076&32.852\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.143&6.978&5.978&0.936102&1.403692&27.454972&3.934517&6.297233&2.695518&1.470&1.907&2.803&10.259\\ \hline 0.211&4.731&3.731&1.674119&2.496871&23.266389&4.917511&8.402147&4.860753&1.219&1.616&1.969&5.767\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.460&2.175&1.175&5.215425&7.334123&12.397762&5.699693&13.279345&15.569626&0.903&0.861&0.777&1.963\\ \hline 0.678&1.475&0.475&8.789420&11.115281&6.042158&4.096813&15.275613&27.272101&0.878&0.420&0.369&1.296\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.468&0.681&-0.319&19.704190&16.201608&4.910267&7.207286&16.992292&75.113899&1.305&0.341&0.445&0.889\\ \hline 2.154&0.464&-0.536&26.084608&16.928765&8.515267&18.345587&17.174536&118.018864&1.833&0.591&1.084&0.851\\ \hline 3.162&0.316&-0.684&32.638034&17.180008&11.040250&34.912335&17.224075&181.212698&2.651&0.767&2.032&0.838\\ \hline 4.642&0.215&-0.785&39.249711&17.261713&12.776339&59.302512&17.261713&274.042078&3.872&0.887&3.435&0.834\\ \hline 6.813&0.147&-0.853&45.880114&17.287747&13.962589&95.126009&17.287747&410.320588&5.675&0.970&5.503&0.833\\ \hline 10.000&0.100&-0.900&52.516301&17.296130&14.771503&147.715032&17.296130&610.357404&8.326&1.026&8.540&0.833\\ \hline 14.678&0.068&-0.932&59.154549&17.298683&15.322788&224.907769&17.298683&903.973904&12.218&1.064&13.001&0.832\\ \hline 21.544&0.046&-0.954&65.793394&17.299445&15.698407&338.211934&17.299445&1334.944709&17.933&1.090&19.550&0.832\\ \hline 31.623&0.032&-0.968&72.432255&17.299812&15.954315&504.519738&17.299812&1967.523376&26.322&1.108&29.163&0.832\\ \hline 46.416&0.022&-0.978&79.071348&17.299828&16.128669&748.626510&17.299828&2896.022178&38.636&1.120&43.274&0.832\\ \hline 68.129&0.015&-0.985&85.710288&17.299959&16.247453&1106.926069&17.299959&4258.871858&56.709&1.128&63.984&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] As you can see this is far more testable and predictive not to mention practical than anything your model shows. I can take any redshift value and I can give you the proper distance both when the signal was first received and the proper distance today. I can also tell you what temperature will correspond to any redshift value. This chart matches observational evidence and matches the graphs of the FLRW metric in for example Lineweaver and Davies. http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf So please start addressing the questions being posed and respond to the question. How can you have negative mass with a positive energy density ? You will note the above also predicts well into the future in terms of how the universe will continue to expand. Proper distance for example with curvature term k=o is [latex] d_p=\int^\sigma_0\frac{d\sigma}{\sqrt{1-k\sigma}}[/latex] where [latex] \sigma [/latex] is a dimensionless commoving coordinate. K is specifically the Gaussian curvature term given by [latex] K=\frac{3}{\pi} \lim_{s \to 0}\frac{2\pi-C}{s^3}[/latex] Here is more info on Gaussian curvature you will note I used a different notation this is the notation Matt Roose uses in Introductory to Cosmology.

Your still looking at the pulses vs time relations incorrectly. If time is affected then so too is the pulse rate. As long as you ignore pulse rate you will keep getting the wrong conclusions. It isn't the number of pulses but the pulse rate that is affected. Try to wrap your head around the difference. Here start with a digital signal for simplicity. The Pulse rate itself will measure the differences between the rising and falling edges of the signal. This is done for the error corrections of GPS satellites. to Quote. "To measure the delay, the receiver compares the bit sequence received from the satellite with an internally generated version. By comparing the rising and trailing edges of the bit transitions, modern electronics can measure signal offset to within about one percent of a bit pulse width" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Error_analysis_for_the_Global_Positioning_System Now connect the dots to gravitational redshift. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift Frequency is a rate.... the pulses change RATE. Here is three frequency formulas hopefully you will see the differences. [latex] f=\frac{1}{t}[/latex] [latex]f=\frac{V}{\lambda}[/latex] V is the wave velocity... [latex]f=\frac{c}{\lambda}[/latex] Also consider this detail, there is 3 other Very knowledgeable posters in GR responding in this thread if I am wrong they will happily and correctly point out my mistakes.

Star fusion isn't something I spent a lot of time studying but assuming faster processes are involved the metal percentages of the cosmos would show higher metal contents. I wouldn't know if the heavier than iron processes involved would have an easier or more difficult time.

If you change nothing but the gravitational constant, the universe would collapse before planets could form. Hence the fine tuning problem associated with Universe models as to why our universe is so finely tuned.

Mark it sounds like your trying to avoid acceptance by ignoring the physics. This won't work. For example the Universe from nothing model is often described as the ultimate free lunch. It is also a model which supports the LCDM model in terms of expansion. There is no conflict between the two models in terms of Hubbles limit etc. No one is arguing against the viability of the Universe from model in this thread. However keep in mind that model requires flat curvature and must approximate the non linear terms of curvature and uses pseudo tensors, however that isn't the topic of this thread. Yes the universe can expand without limit, however eventually our observable portion will reach a limit. At some point light will not be able to overcome the rate of expansion but this is a few Billion years into the future. Living organisms will not affect expansion. Have you ever looked at just how big the universe is ? How can you possibly think the movement of the population of Earth or even every possible habitable planet will affect such vast distances. That is a conjecture with absolutely no basis. The loss of strength of gravity is a consequence of a central force potential in a volume. It already takes into account the formulas for the volume you mentioned. Here is the entire problem with your idea of a BH cause to the DE component. Expansion occurs in all directions equally it is not directional ie outward. That is an anistropic directional component which expansion is not. If expansion was directional ie outward then we would measure this directional component via the changes of ANGLES BETWEEN GALAXIES An outward motion would cause those angles to change, this is not what is measured instead all angles are preserved. By the way the Universe from nothing model says nothing about the universe being part of a BH, in point of detail those two ideas conflict with one another. They would be incompatible models. However you would have to see the maths to understand that.

Thank you, I am already involved there.

You cannot have time dilation without length contraction. This is apparently a lesson you missed when you did the space time graphs. Think about how time is modelled under SR coordinates with the ct coordinate. [latex] x^{\mu}=(x^0,x^1,x^2,x^3)= (ct,x,y,z) [/latex] the ct gives the constant c units of length. So in order to contract the time coordinate ct you must apply the length contraction. As your a new poster you will probably hit your 5 post limit for the first day, so I will look for your response tomorrow.

LOL the aversion to math is rather frustrating lol in many cases it is this aversion to understanding the math that causes them to reinvent the mainstream to something that makes sense to them. Yet once you understand the math you realize it makes sense. This is extremely common for relativity, you will note very rarely does any Einstein is wrong poster ever mention vector addition under either the Lorentz or Galilean tansforms

First off its a rules violation to post non mainstream replies into someone else thread. You already have your own thread that length contraction is invalid according to your view. Do not contaminate another OPS thread with non mainstream replies based on your lack of understanding of how length contraction is applied under the Minkowskii skew symmetry. Post those mathematics into the other thread and we will discuss it there please.

That's not the way this works. The onus is upon you to prove the mainstream understanding is incorrect not prove you wrong. We have 100 years of experimental evidence on the tests of GR on our side. This includes muon decay that without the length contraction the muons could not reach the Earths surface within their mean lifetime. This is just one of many supportive pieces of evidence on the accuracy of GR. A simple verbal explanation is inadequate you will require mathematics that within your model can explain the observational evidence with the same degree of accuracy if not better than the standard model of GR. Here is the essential detail you need to apply. Why is c invariant to all observers but any massive particle displays variant mass and velocity quantities ? Start with that question and explain this without the combination of length contraction and time dilation. another piece of evidence of length contraction is gravitational redshift but lets leave that detail for later.

I really have no idea how you an believe a that expansion caused by a WH or BH will be uniform. How can you possibly think this is even possible when the strength of the gravitatonal force is stronger as you approach a BH. So how can you possibly claim it will be homogeneous and isotropic as you approach the source mass. Gravity loses strength by a 1/r^2 relation. Take any significant mass, Plot this at various distances then look at the curve of the gravitational potential as the distance increases. That region will not be homogeneous and isotropic.

In the past we would see less as well and in the future our Observable portion will gradually lessen. This is part of the reasons many cosmologists mention we live at the best times for studying our universe.