Mordred

Ok supercooling/reheating. When inflation occurs the rapid change in volume and sudden reduction in density causes the supercooling from the initial hot dense state. Then inflation goes through a slow roll phase. The deceleration from the rapid inflation is the cause of the reheating. Now when inflation was first proposed in the False vacuum model. It was soon discovered that the model had a problem. That problem being Runaway inflation, once it started there was no way for it to stop. Later models then had to come up with a mechanism for inflation to stop. This is the slow roll graceful exit. This slow roll exit is also one of the primary contributors to the surface of last scattering in so far as the reheating causes certain particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium leading to the metalicity percentages we measure. Now as this process has very anistropic characteristics and very rapid it is believed that GW waves should be present in the CMB. BICEP2 once thought they had spotted them but it wasn't conclusive enough. This paper presents another possible direction to look for GW waves that the model predicts should be present. It would be another confirmation, but science never stops looking for other evidence so its never final confirmation lol

A tensor is strictly a mathematical construct, a means to organize scalar,vector and spinor relations. It has no peak. QM is part of the standard model but I suppose the terminology your looking for is classical physics as opposed to quantum physics

Actually a quark is far more complex than an electron for the fermionic family to model. Due to its added degrees of freedom, not sure your ready for that just yet. edit x posted with Strange who just listed some of the applicable degrees of freedom lol

Here is a demonstration of the complexity. start with the Higgs field which is a weak isospin doublet with 4 components [latex]\phi=\begin{pmatrix}\phi^2\\\phi^-\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}\phi_1&i\phi_2\\\phi_3&i\phi_4\end{pmatrix}[/latex] a fluctuation around the minimal of the Mexican hat potential defined by the vacuum expectation value [latex]v=\frac{|\mu|}{\sqrt{\lambda}}=\frac{2M_w}{g}=246 Gev[/latex] which defines the electroweak scale. Choose thedirection fluctuation so that [latex]\phi_0=\frac{1}{2}\begin{pmatrix}0\\v\end{pmatrix}[/latex] the fluctuation around the minimum of the Mexican hat potential v is written as [latex]\phi(x)=\phi_0+h(x)[/latex] where [latex]\phi=\begin{pmatrix}\phi^+\\\phi^-\end{pmatrix}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}\phi_1&i\phi_2\\\phi_3&i\phi_4\end{pmatrix}[/latex][latex]\Rightarrow\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}0\\v+h(x)\end{pmatrix}[/latex] where h(x) is the Higgs boson. expand the Higg's potential to second order [latex]V=V_0+\frac{\mu^2}{2}(2Vh+h^2)+\frac{\lambda}{4}(4v^3h+6v^2h^2)=V_0+\lambda v^2h^2[/latex] the additional term from [latex]h^2[/latex] gives the Higgs boson its mass term. [latex] M^2_H=2\lambda v^2 M_H=\sqrt{2}|\mu|[/latex] see how complex the coupling is just for the Higg's boson self field coupling. Very few people will understand the mth but in essence the above describes the Higg's bosons self coupling to the scalar Higgs field of the vacuum expectation value minimal to arrive at the bosons mass term. Now the electroweak mass terms involves several further steps to couple the Higgs field [latex]\phi^2[/latex] to the W+,W-,Z bosons. without going through all the steps we have two additional coupling constants g and [latex] \acute{g}[/latex] these arise from [latex] (\frac{g}{2}\vec{\tau}\bullet\vec{W}+\frac{\acute{g}}{2}B)\phi_0[/latex] there is several lengthy and difficult to latex steps involved but one will arrive at these two very useful equations. (the above took me nearly 1 hour to get correct lmao [latex]{M_W}=\frac{mg}{2}[/latex] which gives the mass to the W+ and W- bosons and [latex] M_Z=\frac{v\sqrt{g^2+\acute{g}}^2}{2}[/latex] which is the mass for the Z boson. Not so easy to relate to but in order to understand how these apply to kinematics one must look into the Langrene and Hamilton's of action. anyways I missed numerous steps but here is a more complete work up http://www.theorie.physik.uni-muenchen.de/lsfrey/teaching/archiv/sose_09/rng/higgs_mechanism.pdf it should be sufficient to demonstrate how field couplings can give rise to the mass terms involved. If I recall correctly Matt Roose "Introductory to cosmology" has a more easy to follow workup but \I will have to check that later on...soon as I find my copy lol hopefully there isn't too many mistakes in the above my handwriting is atrocious to read my own notes. edit side note equations on 36 in particular [latex]A_\mu[/latex] defines the coupling or lack of to photon qauge boson You will note I specifically chose an article prior to Higgs boson discovery to demonstrate how the mass estimates came about. A large part of the reason earlier papers were off on Higg's boson mass terms has to do with uncertainties inherent in the neutrino masses at the time period and the involved mixing angles

lol even after 30 years of study I still find the Yukawa couplings involvement in the Higgs field weak symmetry gauge frustrating to determine the mass of the gauge bosons. There is no truly easy shortcuts to understand how mass arises from coupling constants.

OK lets start with the basics inertia of a body determines its momentum [latex]P=mv[/latex] where v is the velocity. Mass is resistance to inertia change via f=ma it is a bodies resistance to acceleration. here is a starter prep https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=inertial+mass+youtube&view=detail&mid=3E35A75B97B03E6F2C073E35A75B97B03E6F2C07&FORM=VIRE pay close attention to how f=ma applies.... lets get the basic definitions down pat first. This may seem too basic but all mass is determined by the physics definition of mass as per this video. This includes the resistance due to the force of the coupling constants between a field and a particle.

Marke its funny how particle physics were able to calculate the expected range of values for the mass term of a Higgs boson long before its discovery at an LHC. You might not understand how mass is generated but any particle physicist does understand it. I keep telling you that mass is resistance to inertia change. In particle physics this involves the coupling constants which relates the amount of force between a particle and a field. Simply because you refuse to understand how mass is described by physics doesn't mean physicists do not understand mass. That is your lack of knowledge

Cool happenings, with that observation thanks for sharing Beecee

Here is a question you can answer Hyoyoung Choi. If DM and DE were identical in terms of negative mass then why does each evolve differently as the universe expands ? In other words explain this [latex] H^2=H_0^2(\frac{\Omega_m}{a^3}+\frac{\Omega_r}{a^4}+\frac{\Omega_k}{a^2}+\Omega_{\Lambda})[/latex] Would it surprise you to know that a positive matter only universe can still expand ?

The first term on the right derives strictly by Newtons laws of inertia and application of the shell theorem. This term includes both DM and baryonic matter. It is also under the Newton approximations that the critical density formula is derived. [latex] \rho_{crit}=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G} [/latex]

Fine then prove me wrong, show explicitly that you can generate the appropriate galaxy rotation curves with your model... I don't believe any claim that DM has anti mass. Lets start with defining what mass is. "resistance to inertia change" Here is a paper directly involving the NFW profile and early LSS formation. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.0288.pdf Here is a simulation that involves the testing of the NFW profile and behavior of DM as well as DE for that matter. This simulation tested all of the LCDM model under N-body code. It even had the audacity to produce all the known galaxy types. Can you pretend to be as successful with your model?? Note previous link involves thiss simulation. http://www.illustris-project.org/ http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10 here is the published paper containing the details. http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1405/1405.1418.pdf Example from simulation of a spiral galaxy fully simulated using LCDM model parameters and NFW profile can you pretend to be able to do the same? Here is the DM distribution compared to baryonic matter if DM had negative mass then why does it collect along the LSS filaments can you answer that? The gas temperature is hotter where the LSS structure formations occur note the similarities. Here is a little detail under cosmology baryonic matter and dark matter has identical equations of state. This is implicit in the following formula, there is no separate treatment for the two types of matter as there is no need to do so. [latex] H^2=\overbrace{\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho}^{matter density}-\overbrace{\frac{kc^2}{R^2}}^{curvature}+\overbrace{\frac{\Lambda}{3}}^{Lambda}[/latex]

no problem I was editing the mistakes in latex during cross post lol so the quote you have has the initial errors lol

Here is a half decent article dealing specifically on the cosmological constant, https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.12942%2Flrr-2001-1.pdf another good read http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0r203330 "On the Cosmological Constant Problems and the Astronomical Evidence for a Homogeneous Energy Density with Negative Pressure" I don't know how much you know on the FRW metric itself, I know your GR knowledge is excellent so here is a couple off handy resources. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis In this article by Mathius Blau he takes you from GR and some rather advanced GR topics including artifacts of coordinates topics such as involved in numerous so called paradoxes into the FRW metric in its later chapters. http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf Here is a detail to note under cosmology the universe is modelled as a homogeneous and isotropic fluid. This includes matter, radiation and lambda. A homogeneous and isotropic fluid has no inherent directional component on the average of the global metric. A common mistake is to equate pressure as synonymous to gravity however pressure is one component of the stress energy momentum tensor itself which applies the four momentum. [latex] T^{\mu\nu} =\begin{pmatrix}\rho & 0 & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & p & 0 &0\\0 & 0& p & 0 \\0 & 0 & 0&p\end{pmatrix}[/latex] the [latex]T^{00}[/latex] has a positive energy density using the critical density formula this equates to roughly [latex] 7.0 *10^{-10}[/latex] joules per [latex] m^3 [/latex] however the directional component with regards to pressure is the [latex] T^{0i} [/latex] wich is the flux in the i direction, the 3 momentum density being the [latex] T^{i0}[/latex] and the 3 momentum flux (stress/vorticity) being the [latex]T^{ij}[/latex] component. Under symmetry charge is treated under vector symmetries, these vector symmetries of all gauge groups follow the right hand rule as taught under Maxwell. This includes the orthogonal Poincare group SO(1.3). However how one deems to designate as positive or negative pressure depends on the orientation of the state being measured.

indeed lol

read carefully the kinematics being described by Swansont. He is applying specific relations to the conservation law of energy/momentum (specifically the KE and PE terms)

I'm still waiting for some appropriate formula to be applied. Why does everyone that wishes to overturn some physics theory always use and try to modify the most rudimentary equations that while involved never have the required detail ? When are you going to place your theory under a geometry treatment ? of course if you did then you would come to the same conclusion made by Strange earlier... Of course if you looked at the NFW profile and compared the rotation curve of the Milky way you would have realized that the missing mass that DM adds (POSITIVE MASS) is 10 times greater than the baryonic mass. [latex]\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_o}{\frac{r}{r_S}(1+\frac{r}{r_s})^2} [/latex] If DM was repulsive those galaxies would never have formed in the first place. There is great support that DM seeds the first stages of LSS formations. It does so through positive mass density. A simple application of vectors would have told you that. However the NFW profile is one of the most commonly accepted best matches for galaxy rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Notice the formula required a positive energy density to make that match ?????? A negative mass DM would have completely different results than what is observed in nature but again simple vectors would have told you that in the first place ie force applied in the WRONG directions.....enough said on that lol edit well not quite, observational evidence suggests that DM does not exert pressure its equation of state is w=0. Just as any other matter... You can forget DE as well as observational evidence supports a scalar field. ie NO inherent directional component it neither attracts nor repels on average in any direction... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) the last formula is the scalar modelling formula which equates kinetic energy terms to the potential field energy density terms in terms of an EOS. (thermodynamic application of the ideal gas laws under the FRW metric fluid equation ) also on that link (acceleration oft also called deceleration equation)> the required mathematics would need to include the FRW metric so best start familiarizing yourself with them. (ITS under that geometry treatment I keep mentioning ) Then again much like many others you probably never did bother studying what the mainstream studies include in terms of DM and DE. So how do you know if your model is better or worse if you cannot compare to mainstream under the math and to observational evidence ?

You may support the zero energy universe but its obvious your not looking at it properly. Distinquish between the equations of state for matter, radiation and Lambda. Expansion involves the thermodynamic laws which I do not see being applied anywhere in your modelling. The zero energy universe has been around for quite some time. It has problems in requiring Euclidean coordinates and pseudo tensors however that isn't too great a problem. mass can be negative to some non zero baseline however it still has a positive energy density.. and no we do not need a BH to explain the LCDM model which works quite well...this has been attempted before as well but fails at the early large scale structure formation.

Aww the mathematical detail is where all the fun is particularly the assymmetric relations you described above lol.

One of the tricks to realize is that the invariance of c has far reaching implications beyond the speed of light. It also relates to the maximal rate of information exchange between any two states. The speed of light is simply the most commonly known consequence of the maximal information exchange rate. This ties incredibly well to causality laws, and how one measures time in causality related interactions. As Hanke mentioned Minkowskii, under the Lorentz transforms constant velocity is used to match the laws of inertia. Acceleration itself is handled through rapidity which is a type of symmetry rotation. Studiot you mentioned the problem of bouncing between theories, this is a particular difficult endeavour if one doesn't pay close attention to the mathematical treatments in each theory. Far too often confusions arise simply from switching between metric coordinate systems ie classical to quantum to commoving under FRW. Its great to study every theory but one has to pay close attention that any theory is specific to the system state it is describing and how it describes those states. @Hanke its particularly nice having you back for me as your one of the few posters on this forum that can check my replies and answers (particularly when I'm describing gauge groups) so its nice to get that safety net back lol. I can and often do make mistakes so its good to have another set of eyes watching out for them

correct

Both spin and momentum are energy components.

If DM was negative mass then the NFW profile would not work for galaxy rotation curves in the first place... enough said to exlain that DM cannot have negative mass are you perhas referring to DE instead which is a different entity ? Your correct Studiot this thread does belong under speculation however I wish to challenge this thread so will wait for another mod staff member to move it. Edit: I see another mod moved this so here is a question. How can either DM or DE have negative energy when both has positive energy density? Please show this using the energy/momentum equation under SR/GR

At higher energy levels the photon frequencies increase but the invariance still applies. Massless particles have no invariant/rest frame so its wavelength strictly depends on the momentum components [latex]e=pc^2[/latex] of the energy/momentum equation [latex]E^2=(pc^2)+(m_0c^2)^2[/latex]. As you mentioned the photon frame is invalid as an inertial frame. This is seen by the null separation distance [latex] ds^2=0 [/latex]. Markus mentioned already mentioned the fine structure constants would vary and we have looked into this possibility but have never found any evidence to support a varying c at any time in the past. A varying c over universe time would cause several detectable effects. The temperature of the CMB would also be affected and this can be compared by the BAO acoustic oscillations looking at the rate of infalling/expanding matter and comparing how the temperature measurements vary. If c had a different value then the ratio of change would not follow the ideal gas laws we have today. In particular the Bose-Einstein formulas would not work properly as the Boltzmann constant would also change. The Boltzmann constant provides a correlation between the average kinetic energy of a multiparticle system under ideal gas law treatments to the temperature measurements.

Welcome back Markus. You have supplied some excellent answers, lol saves me a bit of time.... I recall these tests done but had nearly forgotten about them thanks for the reminder..

Why would you think a WH has no spatial dimensions yet contain an entire universe with 3 spatial dimensions with one of time? Does it not have a volume hence 3 spatial dimensions it also evolves over time for the 4th dimension of time so how does it not have dimensions ? Why would you think there would be no rotation when every BH we have found rotates and a WH is causally connected to a BH ie part of the same system connected through the Einstein Rosen bridge. ? Those two arguments makes no sense sorry