Mordred

I would like you to consider a previous unexplained statement I made. " A matter only universe will still expand". Now consider the distrinution of mass without changing the number of particles. Just the distribution... Specifically matter forming large scale structures such as galaxies etc. Is it accurate to suggest the gravitational field is weakening? or is it more accurate to recognize that the field is no longer evenly distributed in its mass/energy density distrubution throughout the field ? Also recall the strength of gravity from a mass source falls off 1/r^2. I would also like you to consider the difference between the energy/mass density and the total energy of a field...ie the total energy stays constant but the energy density itself decreases as the volume increases. Then reread that article and think of how the above applies with regards to redshift etc.

Come from where absolutely nothing in this diagram even remotely describes an equation of state representing DE. I won't bother repeating all the unanswered questions posted by others Try reading some of the links provided by Beecee you might actually learn something representing physics.

One has to apply each type of redshift for each dynamic involved. While light crosses a gravity well, we need to apply gravitational redshift. For a galaxies actual motion relative to the observer, Doppler shift. For an expanding universe during transit times between emitter and reciever cosmological redshift. All three can be involved on the same signal.

Either way a field depends on arbitrary choices, such as the choice of coordinate system or the gauge symmetry groups used. Hence the term field Treatment example conformal or canonical So does an arbitrary choice make a field real? of course not, the arbitrary choices we choose only describes the dynamics in question. Fields is directly involved with the mathematics and arbitrary choice of how to apply mathematics to describe the dynamics of a system.

Ever looked at the proper definition of space? It is simply volume. Spacetime is any metric where time is given dimensionslity of length in Natural units. How we describe spacetime is a mathematical treatment of arbitrary choice. Ie the Universe doesn't care how we measure it. I can measure any volume of spacetime in a dozen different ways all equally accurate and valid using any arbitrary number of fields, subfields, rings, or dimensions. Roflmao I've even encountred theories where a 4d volume involved 465 dimensions. (though I doubt I can find the article today). Each dimension involving a different degree of freedom that can be accurately described as a different field... Every collection of particles of every type can be described with its own field, every interaction between these fields ie holonomy is also its own field. Every overlap, every connection every fibre bundle. Take the Higgs field as an example it involves not 1 but 4 seperate fields each describing a different interaction If thats not abstract then what is ?

Who stated he is necessarily right or wrong valid arguments can be made for any metaphysics argument. Those debates are endless circles of continous debates. Just like any other philosophical debate. Provide one example of a philosophical argument that ever reached a decisive conclusion... I am more than aware of Art Hobsons qualifications. I have my own as well, what of it. Does that automatically mean everything I state is correct simply because of my masters degree? or that Hobson is correct everytime simply because he has a PH.D or Swansont with his PH.D ?

I like many of Art Hobsons works right until he hits metaphysics. Then I ignore him. Just as I did with Stephen Hawkings when he applied metaphysics. The purpose of physics is not the philosophy of reality. It is to make accurate and testable predictions of measurable events and quantities

Tell you what describe how the universe evolves and plot the coordinate and proper distance of a galaxy from our observer point without mathematics. Define mass without using mathematics

Lol its been literally a study of dozens of articles simply to understand a single page in many cases. Lets try an example. Many of us have heard of SO(3.1) Poincare group for relativity. Yet I can describe this exact same group under SU(2)×SU(2)/Z_2 ). Then further that under SL(c/2) or under E(32). All of which involve different numbers of dimensions for the precise same dynamics and spacetime region.

Answer how particle A behaves to reach point B without mathematics... Your objection is the use of mathematics itself. Does an engineer build a bridge that involves peoples lives without applying mathematics to the structural integrety? Why would you believe a physicist can predict dynamical motion and kinematics of how particle A behaves to go from one coordinate location to another without mathematics? Is ir sufficient to just use mere words? Here is an abstract field the inflaton field. Here we use a placeholder quasi particle not real and not virtual. It is a particle that merely exhibits particlelike behavior but does it actually exist ? Yet it is commonly used for inflation... meanwhile another quasi particle that dropped out of usage today that performed the precise same function is Parker radiation and the curvaton. Both of which had their own fields.... Yes fields is a nathematical tool that is incredibly useful in physics but it is impossible to define any field without using mathematics. By define I mean describe its distribution and variations at every single coordinate however many coordinates you use is an arbitrary decision

Wow has this thread gone down the garden path. Its truly amazing as one can assign any field to any region of spacetime under geometry. All that is required is a set of assigned values or functions under a geometry or coordinate basis. Roflmao this is done even with scalar fields such as temperature... Why argue the detail that math is involved... How else can one possibly model relations of how A affects B without mathematics. So what if those mathematics describes measurable quantities. That is precisely the entire purpose in the first place. Lets not forget some common rational thought instead of getting sidetracked into "Is fields real or simply a mathematical descriptive". The entire purpose in the first place is to accurately describe measurable quantities under a predictive and testable model.... Do we argue against the validity of Newtons laws of inertia simply because it involves mathematics? So how is fields any different ????? Lol want a good sidetrack metaphysics debate discuss the meaning of physical.... If you want a broad understanding of Fields try this 885 page article I have spent over 3 years just to understand half of it. Some good insights from this article such as a bosonic field i symmetric while a fermionic field is antisymmetric... http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" Lol want a good metaphysics debate (another thread) define physical then look at the definition of physics... Anyone that believes they can describe how particle A behaves under field condition B without mathematics is blowing fluff out their rear end. Let alone accurately plot the variations that occur on a field of any type LMAO

Keep in mind the Hubble constant is only constant everywhere in the universe at a specific time. The value provided is T_now. However in the past it is higher. The further back in time you go the higher the Hubble value. Now this is a bit tricky with expansion. Although the Hubble constant is decreasing over time PER MPC. The expansion rate as per Hubbles law is accelerating. This is a consequence of the volume aspects and measuring the size of the observable universe as opposed to measuring expansion rates per Mpc. You can see this in the H/H_0 column which compares previous Hubble values with redshift to todays Hubble value z=1090 is approximately the time of the CMB. [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_{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&0.056714&0.000856&21.023&3.148&66.182&22915.263\\ \hline 0.002&608.566&607.566&0.000979&0.001594&0.100794&0.002319&14.843&3.115&46.232&9032.833\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&338.773&0.002496&0.003956&0.178562&0.006124&10.712&3.068&32.869&3639.803\\ \hline 0.005&189.701&188.701&0.006228&0.009680&0.314971&0.015819&7.842&3.004&23.561&1487.678\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&104.913&0.015309&0.023478&0.552333&0.040144&5.791&2.918&16.895&613.344\\ \hline 0.017&59.133&58.133&0.037266&0.056657&0.960718&0.100464&4.298&2.800&12.036&254.163\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&32.015&0.090158&0.136321&1.651928&0.248752&3.200&2.642&8.455&105.633\\ \hline 0.054&18.433&17.433&0.217283&0.327417&2.793361&0.610939&2.386&2.431&5.800&43.981\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&9.291&0.522342&0.785104&4.606237&1.491191&1.782&2.147&3.827&18.342\\ \hline 0.174&5.746&4.746&1.252327&1.874042&7.300157&3.620922&1.337&1.768&2.364&7.684\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.208&2.977691&4.373615&10.827382&8.733318&1.026&1.267&1.301&3.292\\ \hline 0.558&1.791&0.791&6.817286&9.184553&14.365254&20.669840&0.875&0.642&0.562&1.568\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&0.000&13.787206&14.399932&16.472274&46.278944&1.000&0.000&0.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.791&0.558&-0.442&22.979870&16.668843&17.112278&95.281180&1.547&0.481&0.745&0.864\\ \hline 2.961&0.338&-0.662&31.510659&17.154169&17.220415&168.603314&2.486&0.741&1.842&0.839\\ \hline 4.896&0.204&-0.796&40.170941&17.267296&17.267296&290.007398&4.083&0.901&3.677&0.834\\ \hline 8.095&0.124&-0.876&48.860612&17.292739&17.292739&490.769217&6.741&0.998&6.724&0.833\\ \hline 13.383&0.075&-0.925&57.557046&17.298283&17.298283&822.704529&11.141&1.056&11.767&0.832\\ \hline 22.127&0.045&-0.955&66.254768&17.299620&17.299620&1371.505677&18.418&1.092&20.106&0.832\\ \hline 36.583&0.027&-0.973&74.952986&17.299815&17.299815&2278.857001&30.451&1.113&33.895&0.832\\ \hline 60.484&0.017&-0.983&83.651102&17.299968&17.299968&3779.010092&50.345&1.126&56.692&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&-0.990&92.349407&17.299900&17.299900&6259.261851&83.237&1.134&94.384&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] So at z=1089 the Hubble constant was 22915.263 times greater than it is today. The particle horizon is the observable universe, Stretch 1.000 is today (Stretch is simply the inverse of the scale factor a So given this data how can a weakening field be accurate if per Mpc the Hubble constant is decreasing and not increasing? Here is a little detail a matter only universe can still expand.

No as it also involves percentages of elements such as lithium and hydrogen etc. Then too is the surface of last scattering obscurity and the dark ages which we will not see past using light detection. The CMB conditions depends greatly upon several key thermodynamic processes. One being symmetry breaking due to inflation with its supercooling then reheating which involves the ideal gas laws and thermal equilibrium dynamics of the SM particles. The other being the subsequent expansion after the inflationary period which also allowed sufficient cooling to allow atoms to form with stability. All the above sets the stage for BB nucleosynthesis which is extremely involved with particle physics and thermodynamic laws. Discovering the CMB was a major criteria to confirm the BB model as well as confirming expansion itself.

of course its relevant

It is this miniscule strain that requires the sheer length of the detector arms in order to detect a GW wave of this syrain amplitude. It is theotetically possible with much longer arms to detect smaller strains however this becomes highly problematic with noises sich as vibration from other sources. The one advantage is that GW waves have a quadrupole waveform while other noise sources are typically dipolar such as mechanical vibration.

I love your explanation Janus, excellently done and complete

If you have zero dimensions how can GR describe a geometry?

Recessional velocity is an apparent velocity that is not a true velocity that involves inertia. It is simply seperation distances from expansion/contraction and not inertia based upon Newtons laws of inertia ie f=ma. The seperation distance in excess of the Hubble horizon will give greater than c recessive velocities however this does not violate SR for the above reasons.

Everything described, defined or modelled by physics involves mathematics. It is a requirement of any model to make testable predictions of how a affects b. You cannot describe every possibility of how a affects b without involving math. Lol even the the term mass involves mathematics. Ie Newtons laws of inertia

Ok so lets go with your feelings for a moment answer this question. "What is a scalar, vector, Spinor or tensor field made of"? These are major types of fields how would you answer the above question ? Is it not valid that I can accurately describe any volume as a scalar, vector, spinor or tensor field ? or any combination of multiple overlapping fields some with embedding connections with other fields thus generating its own field. Such examples include numerous types of manifolds, fibre bundles, branes etc. What about different types of spaces such as phase space, vector space etc ? What about subfields and rings? What is energy or mass made of would be another unanswerable question as both are properties. Another very common misconception question relates to spacetime which is a type of field. " How does spacetime curve or stretch, what is is made of that bends or stretch?" see the problem of trying to apply substance to a mathematical methodology or a property? Trust me if you stick to the proper definitions you will have a far easier time understanding any physics related topic. Every physics model etc String theory, relativity, QFT, QM etc all follow those definitions precisely. Lol there would be far less misconception posts as well on topics such as ADS/CFT, the holographic universe etc. Here is a quote from a 5 second google lookup. "Abstract field theory emerged from three theories, which we would now call Galois theory, algebraic number theory and algebraic geometry. Field theoretic notions appeared, even though still implicitly, in the modern theory of solvability of polynomial equations, as introduced by Abel and Galois in the early nineteenth century. Galois had a good insight into fields obtained by adjoining roots of polynomials, and he proved what we call now the Primitive Element Theorem." Field Theory chapter 3. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www1.spms.ntu.edu.sg/~frederique/chap3.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjs2MTF9e3aAhXix4MKHZ9BB0YQFjACegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw3LVo_kAXPwmAPDZPpyMLJ4 For subfields and rings see the following. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/FT.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjo743i9u3aAhWO3oMKHT7uDI8QFjAgegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw0WfWUT1gvKuvX_NIwdqbRk How do you apply tangibility to the field definitions in those two articles?

Mass involves energy, but energy is a property. Energy isn't something that exists on its own. In field treatments however its Ok to equate a field energy. Particles being field excitations. These definitions are extremely important to always remember Energy the ability to perform work mass resistance to inertia change. Einstein showed the mass energy relation via e=mc^2. Also keep in mind all fields are an abstract device, where one assigns a collection of functions or values to a geometric basis. One can mathematically equate any collection of functions or values to any geometric space and even stack any arbitrary number of overlapping fields. This is done far more often than most ppl realize. Dimension in physics is any independant variable just as it is in mathematics. These dimensions relate to the number of degrees of freedom a system has. In the equation of state link I posted above there is a particularly useful formula relating to DE. That being the scalar modelling equation. The time derivitave in fact relates to the kinetic energy terms with the scalar field potential energy. So lets include those definitions to the above. Potential energy. The ability to perform work due to its position relative to another position Kinetic energy the ability to perform work due to its motion. As this thread is about fields I will post some previous topics I posted awhile ago. This may help with understanding QFT treatments with the above I am still working on this one but you should find it useful nonetheless

! Moderator Note Welcome aboard, as this is a hypothetical model this belongs in our Speculations section. I will move it to the proper forum as the forum you used if primarily for mainstream questions and answers and not personal model development. Please familiarize yourself with the rules and guidelines of the Speculation forum https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/

Yes we know for sure it is expanding. There is plenty of evidence not only the recession of galaxies and redshift. The thermodynamic history, BB nucleosynthesis and the CMB are also pieces of evidence. Expansion can occur in both a finite and infinite universe. It is a decrease in overall density. Forget your vortex, the universe follows the cosmological principle and is homogeneous and isotropic. A vortex has a centre and preferred direction. The universe mass distribution does not. On large scales it is well approximated as a uniform distribution. (sampling above 100 Mpc). The universe is electromagnetically neutral it has no inherent global charge and is certainly not BH's. This should show the last statement you made as incorrect.

Well Freedman has a valid point in the quote above. One of the potential possibilities for DM not DE is sterile right handed neutrinos which the mathematics of the particle models predict should exist. However we have yet to discover any. Either in nature or in the lab. Then there is the possibility of the supersymmetric particles in terms of the quote itself. For DE the Higgs field metastability may garnish some insights. Here is the related articles DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 This is where I myself feel the best potential is in addressing DM, DE and inflation. Now here is the trick. Most of the mass of the universe involves DM and DE along with radiation. Baryonic matter only makes up roughly 4.6 percent. Ordinary baryonic matter is insignificant as a player to how our universe expands or contracts. Radiation comprises a portion of the 4.6 percent but its equation of state due to kinetic energy is a large factor. Matter has an EoS of zero. Where radiation w=1/3. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology)

No it means that one requires DE or a preferable term Lambda for the cosmological constant. It does not imply a stronger gravity.