Mordred

When studying Pauli exclusion at particular attention to fermions with [latex] \hbar=\frac{h}{2\pi}[/latex] this has importance with the above probability density distributions and the fermionic half integer spins. It will also provide vital clues as to the subtle differences between boson and fermionic gauge groups. I would also suggest studying Pauli in terms of hydrogen atom spin orbitals for starters....

The symmetric/ antisymmetric relation is important take a system of identical particles but have the requirement that all particles are indistinguishable from one another. This means that changing any two particles within this system will not affect the probability density [latex] |\psi|^2 [/latex] Dirac notation. symmetric case [latex]\psi(r^1,r^2)=\psi(r^1,r^2)[/latex] antisymmetric case [latex]\psi(r^1,r^2)=-\psi(r^1,r^2)[/latex] where [latex]|\psi(r^1,r^2)| [/latex] is the two particle probability density function. This can be studied in greater detail by studying gauge groups under Pauli exclusion principle. edit repaired two mistakes miss implied the operator and repaired one latex

Further terminology correction is needed as the above makes no sense. Embedded and perturbation are not the distinguishing features between a fermion and a Boson. A boson is symmetric with integer spin while a fermion is antisymmetric with fractional spin values.

As you mentioned radiated from a WH, this is identical to radiating from a central source. This would entail a vector field as opposed to a scalar field such as the BB model. The type of vector field would be diverging. Regions closer to the WH will naturally have a higher mass density which is detectable via its temperature contributions. These temperature variations will also show up in the BAO, Baryon Acoustic oscillations which is a fancy way of describing the rate of infalling matter and outflowing matter on anistrophy distributions. I also recall stating that a BH varies in rotation rate and thus so does its WH exit, this will vary the mass distributions as well. So good luck in this theoretical view, Its been tried before and lost out with the body of evidence since the sheer uniformity of the CMB was measured.

To add to Janus excellent point, we would be able to detect antimatter and matter collisions regardless if they repel each other or attract. Though evidence clearly shows matter and antimatter pairs attract, collide and emit detectable radiation as a result. As previously mentioned the pair is opposite in charge polarity opposites attract. Here is direct observation of collisions https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/22/discovery-lightning-creates-anti-matter-in-our-atmosphere/ https://www.wired.com/2011/08/earth-antimatter-belt/ note not only lightning but our sun also produces antimatter rays that collide with our atmosphere on Earth. In cosmology it isn't that antimatter isn't present, it is so scarce on a global metric scale. matter dominates the mix. So we do know the properties of matter/antimatter as per mass and charge which goes against your repulsion. We have also tested the attraction at the LHC. Where we can create antimatter.

Great so your copy post supports the possibility of quark matter being denser. So did the article I linked, How does that support your claim that BH singularities cannot be made of SM particles when quarks is an SM particle ?

I'd prefer not to quote the last post however you mentioned antimass. This isn't accurate. Antimatter does not have negative mass no, the only difference between a matter/antimatter pair is the charge. You can model a lower potential via a greater than zero baseline however as your looking for symmetry relations you set at zero. For example an observer/emitter under SR each set a baseline at zero under the 4d metrics depending on which is chosen to be the observer.. For the FRW metric spacetime dilation isn't as involved as many think. By this I refer to a class of solutions under GR called the Newton potential. The Newton potential is a good approximation for GR for the LCDM model under the FLRW metric. The influence is expansion which results in using commoving coordinates. Under LCDM the universe is extremely uniform at large scale distribution. The generally accept scale is 100 Mpc at this scale Galaxy and even LSS filaments anistropic distributions are effectively washed out. Visualize an ocean viewed from a plane the waves get washed out. Effects due to anistropic distributions is when relativistic effects occur but under FRLW is localized to the LSS distributions. Not involved on the global field distributions on average per 100 Mpc. Now the higher density past originates due to extreme density which also means extreme temperatures. The LCDM model includes a relation to how matter, radiation, and Lambda (DE) evolve over time. These relations each has a thermodynamic equation of state as to how they correspond to pressure and flux under GR as well as the ideal gas laws. How these evolve sets the rate of expansion via there pressure influence. Relativity comes into play however in that the rate of moving matter cannot exceed c. Matter has an EoS w= 0, it has very little pressure influence. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)&ved=2ahUKEwiMutCS0qLbAhWlHjQIHcwnAP0QFjAAegQICRAB&usg=AOvVaw31ndvIImqIOlRBzme3nePT wiki covrage but better information here https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.ir.isas.ac.jp/~cpp/teaching/cosmology/documents/cosmology01-05.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiMutCS0qLbAhWlHjQIHcwnAP0QFjABegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw37DQF5eUpSBEoC_QefsvGg The last link is a generlized listing of whats involved but these are excellent study guides into BB nucleosynthesis due to post BB density changes. http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellidohttp://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgueshttp://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Lindehttp://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis The last article has a good lesson on SR in its first chapters. Now at [latex]10^43 [/latex] the temperature is so extreme all particles become indistinquishable due to being in a state of thermal equilibrium. This includes the constituent particles that make up a field ie quarks/gluons for strong, ext see links. As the universe cools various particles become distinguishable as they drop out of the thermal dynamic state. Typically photons are used to model this state as temperature is of the electromagnetic spectrum. Photons mediate that field. This gives rise to various phase changes under thermodynamics and involves symmetry breaking ie Electroweak symmetry break as one example. Last link chapter 3 and 4 has excellent coverage of one possible sequence.

Correct it was an interesting read so I kept a link to Jubilee reprints on my site. My 1921 physics textbook never mentioned other galaxies either lol. Though its model of the atom was protons and electrons no neutron...

Here is a reprint of the great debate prior to Hubbles work. http://apod.nasa.gov/diamond_jubilee/debate20.html Which occurred in the 20's

Swansont is well aware of the mainstream treatments as am I for a photon. The links you provided do not answer the questions in accordance to your model specifically hence why they are being asked. You don't have any of the required mathematics to support your claims... We are asking questions for two reasons 1) to see how thoroughly thought out your model is 2) to see how you can explain mainstream views in accordance to your model. After all a good theory should encompass the large body of tests and mainstream views and be able to explain them via its own theory. This requires a detailed familiarity with how mainstream physics handles a given topic as well. How else does one compare the strengths and weaknesses of a new theory ?

Why would you claim in the last post most interactions are electro magnetic? What about flavor for the weak force with 3 charges and color for the strong force with again 3 charges? Photons are charge neutral they do not exhibit a vector field as does a charged particle. If it were a charged particle it would exhibit fermionic antisymmetric characteristics and not bosonic symmetric characteristics. Particularly if it were a little ball as you claim. Though you are right about one thing. You shouldn't expect physicists to accept what you have written however the reason has nothing to do with being set in our ways. Numerous models that once were accepted were later shown inaccurate physics adapts with new findings all the time. You however have yet to prove the need for us to adapt to your view...

We are dealing with polarity states. If it will help see the Stern Gerlack experiment. Regardless of which axis you examine it still requires a 720 degree rotation. As a further note if a particle were a spinning ball with two poles ie north and south then when they hit the detector plate Why can we only measure two quantized polarity states instead of any orientation? if you take a ball with two poles it can hit a wall at any orientation angle why does this not apply to an electron as per the experiment ? Tell me what did you study under QM before writing that lengthy article ? "Another important result is that only one component of a particle's spin can be measured at one time, meaning that the measurement of the spin along the z-axis destroys information about a particle's spin along the x and y axis." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment here is another quote to account for However, if the magnetic field is inhomogeneous then the force on one end of the dipole will be slightly greater than the opposing force on the other end, so that there is a net force which deflects the particle's trajectory. If the particles were classical spinning objects, one would expect the distribution of their spin angular momentum vectors to be random and continuous. Each particle would be deflected by an amount proportional to its magnetic moment, producing some density distribution on the detector screen. Instead, the particles passing through the Stern–Gerlach apparatus are deflected either up or down by a specific amount.

No It applies to all spin 1/2 fermions. Also no spinning in two directions will not solve the problem. Try again Keep in mind each spin value has a different number of degrees to return to the original phase angle...

Tell me Marke if I were to post the mathematics on how the Higgs boson gains mass from its interaction from the Higgs field would you be able to follow it ? Here is the thing every statement I make I can back up either with peer reviewed works or with mathematics from my own understanding. Countless times I have informed you mass is a resistance to inertia change. Nothing more.... Think of an analogy to propogation delay of a electronic signal as it passes an electric field. This is a perfect example of a signal delay due to an interaction with a field. Mass is precisely the same phenomena..in point of detail e=mc^2 is fundamentally involves Newtons laws of inertia. However under GR we map the freefall motion as opposed to force. All forms of energy or matter can curve spacetime and subsequently is a mass contributor. You have been told countless times that matter is not the only source of mass. A photon has variant ( inertia mass) it does not have an invariant (rest mass) however photons can generate a mass density in high enough a density. Even a gravitational wave can generate a mass density term. All forms of energy or matter can contribute to mass....

The quark family has 3 charges, we call them color charges. There is also 3 flavor charges + - isn't the only charge possibilities. As far as mass is concerned I keep stating that mass is resistance to inertia change. How a particle of any type gains mass is due to how that particle couples to the fields it interacts with.

Entanglement doesn't involve what pop media coins as spooky action. This is a very common misconception. Nor is any superluminal communication involved. Despite all the pop media hype what is really involved is causality and the correlation functions which is a statistical term. We have numerous threads on this forum detailing these misconceptions in our Quantum mechanics forum. So no its not going to help you either. Here is your basic problem. Your trying to connect the dots of numerous theories without understanding any of them properly then trying to in essence reinvent them to develop your model. This tactic is literally doomed to fail. When one develops a new model it is always best to study the mainstream physics involved first and foremost. There is several advantages on doing so. 1) familiarity with the physics involved 2) Development in understanding the modelling techniques 3) familarity with the appropriate mathematical techniques 4) the gain of the ability to properly describe your model using proper terminology 5) a means to compare your model with those already done to properly weigh the advantages and disadvantages. there is more but those are some of the main advantages. Anyways here is an excellent article on entanglement http://www.drchinese.com/Bells_Theorem.htm It was written as a FAQ style article so has been simplified.

That device won't allow you to measure below planck scale. You really need to stop relying on pop media for research and study the actual physics. It takes a minimal quanta of action to be detectable.

Man your last couple of posts literally sounds like a total mess. Sorry there isn't anything that makes sense out of those posts. Especially the last one. Why don't you actually sit down and study how modelling is properly done in mainstream modelling or at the very least in any theory you've mentioned... Do you enjoy not being understood properly? There is no methodology to make measurements below planck scale... This has nothing to do with the equipment technique or technology but is a consequence of minimal observable action to any form of detector.

What you think or believe is irrelevant ib physics its what you can mathematically define and test. I believe tons of ideas on certain physics topics that makes no difference unless I can properly describe, predict, test and prove those ideas its nothing more than a random idea or belief

mathmatica and good luck defining anything below planck units. For the below dynamics you will need a coordinate basis containing the field functions at each coordinate. You could apply string theory however its extremely math intense and as such extremely misconceived as to what branes and strings represent in the first place....ie they don't represent subplanckian units.

Now that I agree with lol absence of anything measurable or definable ?

Actually energy is extremely well defined " The ability to perform work" The problem is everyone wants to make it into something its not lol ie treat it as some form of seperate entity or seperate mysterious substance. On the topic of matter everyone wants to think of it as some solid lol. However solid is an illusion of perceptions. @Marke whatwhat I feel DM is doesn't matter, however my research gives me the impression the answer lies in 3 flavors of sterile right hand neutrinos via the Higgs seesaw mechanism. In this case the SM predicts that right hand neutrinos should exist however we have yet to identify any. However they could very well be something else that exhibits matter properties

I recall stating that your pictures are too difficult to make our ob legibility. So no I can't make heads or tails of those images. For that matter most of what you've written has been poorly describes at best. If I recall I was constantly pointing out using proper physics terminology on this thread. Particularly since the mathematical details are still lacking However wavefunctions are not spherical at some point. They have no internal structure how can they ? Your claims always seem to have numerous misconceptions based largely on a rather poor understanding of the physics you believe to understand. That last post is a perfect example a wavefunction is in essence a mathematical descriptive of a waveform.... get your terminology straight and please don't try to claim a waveform has iman internal structure either. That would simply prove you have no understanding of what waveforms represent ie variations of a measurement. example voltage in 120 ac power... The QM and QFT view of particles are field excitations. Excitations are in essence waveforms. In the two slit experiment for example the constructive and destructive interference patterns caused by the slits gives rise to the pointlike scatterings and wavelike characteristics. The pointlike characteristics is defined by the compton wavelength for photons for matter waves it is determined by the De-Broglie wavelength. You have yet to post anything conclusive in your conjectures to state anything otherwise. You are working on a model but do not have one as of yet and have zero supportive tests of your conjectures. When I answer questions I ALWAYS answer in accordance to mainstream physics and never in suppport of unproven hypothesis as per forum rules and regulations.

The Higgs interaction with the neutrino mixing is what gives rise to the mass value to those neutrinos. As the mass value is one of the properties in particle identification then without that mass value it wouldn't exist as that particular type of neutrino. The Higgs field is oft treated as 4 seperate fields each dealing with each individual mixing angle with the three neutrinos and 1 left unused. That being said another factor is the temperatures involved during EWSB is also high enough many of the SM particles would be indistinquishable from one another via thermal equilibrium. A side note this is one of the possible processes involved in Higgs inflation which instead of requiring an inflaton would be explainable as a thermal phase transition. The paper being focussed on the Higgs interaction during EWSB doesn't detail thermal equilibrium but under cosmology this process is also occuring. Prior to inflation the quark gluon plasma state Swansont mentioned above is a thermal equilibrium state which would exist at this time.

Well it would certainly qualify then lol