Mordred

Nah last 4 articles above the SR essentially all have the same equations and layout just done by different authors lol. The ones above training are all written with a novice audience in mind so has very little in the way of math. Lmao though this is coming from someone who will study 2000 plus page dissertations and proof read them in a matter of a couple of days.

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist. Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. Start here there is a couple of lecture notes. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole? Training (textbook Style Articles) 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 http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally. If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed. I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations. Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

Let's stick to the physics of our Observable universe before worrying about other possible universes. This evening I will run through the basics behind the LCDM model

So I have to ask are you willing to learn if we provide guidance and material to study to try and develop your ideas in a more formal manner ? If so we can certainly provide direction but the onus of doing the work is up to you. I also don't want to waste time if your not willing to learn. Yes I know we're talking a considerable amount of time to get up to speed with the basics of physics.

Unfortunately the role of a physics model is to calculate testable predictions which requires formulas. The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter how accurate a verbal description or picture etc is. If there is no way to calculate cause and effect then there isn't any usefulness. That's simply the reality.

Little suggestion you can also do away with the SQEPKR etc. Apply the energy momentum relation and apply either Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations or alternately the Dirac equations. There exists a category of particles called resonant particles. To understand what determines resonant particles one can study the Breit Wigner distributions which already factor in chirality/helicity and other quantum particle properties in the cross sections.

Truthfully I'm still waiting on any physics relevance. Much like Studiot I'm not interested in code. As mentioned physics applies logic whenever applicable.

Lol guess I'm too used to the math side lmao Yes but keep in mind this detection method isn't necessarily the only option. Although all methods will invariably be incredibly challenging including via particle accelerators in regards to quantum noise and required energy levels.

Tell you what it's far easier to literally drop the word gravity. It isn't a case of gravity gravitating whatever that means. What is perceived as gravity under GR is simply Tidal force due to curvature.

Let's put it this way we currently have no means to directly detect gravitons due to its extremely low theoretical cross section and extremely large Compton wavelength. This paper better describes the challenges https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601043

There were alternate proposals with both possibilities I recall studying a few years back when I was studying the graviton research. Often they involved alternative gravity theories as well for example Stability of spin-0 graviton and strong coupling in Horava-Lifshitz theory of gravity https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0268 Spin 1 I've seen for some supersymmetry based theories. Though haven't read any for spin 1 in several years. I agree with you on the unlikelyhood of any spin other than spin 2 but other alternatives are around lol.

No the cause is the other fields acting upon spacetime via their coupling (mass terms) the distinction is if gravity is a force the mediator is the graviton. If it's an effect then there is no mediator and it's strictly the curvature terms arising from the SM particle mass distributions. The question becomes is gravity strictly the tidal force (pseudoforce) due to curvature. If it's a force field then under QFT would have a mediator. Mathematically in both cases it's the acceleration terms in the effect case spacetime curvature itself applies the pseudo force in the graviton case it would mediate the force vectors. In either case you will get the same results as it's been shown gravitons are not needed to explain the effects if spacetime curvature. Consequently they are not needful for a ToE. Nor are gravitons needful to understand gravity.

Very close be more accurate to understand that pure gravity via gravitons by itself is renormalizable. Any permutations are not. So the unperturbed Maximally symmetric spacetime \(\eta_{\mu\nu}\) using the minimally coupled Langrangian is renormalizable. However once you lose maximal symmetry via curvature, gravity waves, cosmological constant, or other permutations involving the stress energy momentum tensor acting upon the perturbation tensor \(h_{\mu\nu}\) are not renormalizable. These are where the higher order loop integrals arise from not the gravitons (one loop integral field ) by itself. So under for example the weak field limit. \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] When \(h_{\mu\nu}=0\) consequently \(T_{\mu\mu}=0\) spacetime is renormalizable. It loses renormalizability when those tensors do not equal zero Dave for the density term at T_(00).

The spin 2 characteristics arise from the perturbation rank 2 symmetric tensor \(h_{\mu\nu}\) which is transverse and traceless but also must couple to matter and antimatter. This obviously also requires the rank 2 stress energy momentum tensor. The other detail is that gravity only attracts which is also a determining factor for spin 2. The solutions are rather intense Ryder Lewis "Introductory to Cosmology"gives a simplified solution However this article describes the main points as to why Spin2 is the most likely http://fmatrm.if.usp.br/~enrico/Gravitation_from_Field_Theory.pdf A simple understanding is that it is the polarizations such as those of gravity waves that leads to the spin 2 and those derive from working from 4D geometry via SO(3.1) Poincare group.

A little secret both the graviton and gravity waves properties are derived via the Einstein field equations. Gravity waves being spin 2 quadrupole however does suggest the most likely particle candidate being spin 2 as well. However there is also spin 1 and spin zero possibility for the graviton. However there is also the possibility that gravity is strictly a spacetime effect and has no mediator boson.

Yes it is plausible to get a ToE without gravitons and even if gravitons are discovered the UV divergence problem will still exist.

If it's a personal theory post it in Speculation not one of the mainstream physics forums.

I'm sorry but most of that last post makes little sense.

Probability functions are already factored in via the related momentum term under the renormalized Hamilton including related uncertainties,Schrodinger, Klein-Gordon and Dirac relations Probability currents due to different amplitudes are also included in the Feymann integrals themselves as well as the position/momentum uncertainties from Fourier transformations. Those Feymann integrals is what the renormalization counter terms is being applied to. QM and QFT use different operators for the above but they are in essence equivalent provided Lorentz invariance is being applied by QM via Dirac equations as the Schrodinger is not Lorentz invariant. Keep in mind it also isn't unusual to have multiple Langrangians involved in the same particle to particle scattering event. In point of detail you more often than not will be working with multiple integrals. Particularly with mass terms each requires it's own renormalization counter term or multiple counter terms for integrals with multiples orders (first, second, third....). A simple example being the momentum vs wave vector being inclusive in the same integral such as positive/negative frequency modes using the creation/annihilation operators.

Let's ask a simple question. Do you get angry at your teacher when he tells you, your method or idea won't work ? Or do you take the time to understand why the teacher makes that statement and learn from it. With regards to calculations I honestly didn't see much interest to the Maxwell equations I posted earlier on this thread with regards to the experiment. So I stopped mentioning them. Prior to describing the helical and cyclotronic magnetic moments.

Here is the thing about renormalization. The method used whether it is dimensional regularization, renormalization or simply an effective cutoff actually makes no difference . One can alternately employ any method or even mix methods with the same Feymann integrals. Though mixing isn't recommended it doesn't change anything. I will think about how to explain the higher order integrals in an easy to understand manner if I can think of a way to describe them in an easy to understand manner. I will post it. Edit the simplest way with regards to gravity. All loop integrals has k loop momentum. The one loop momentum is the massless propogator action. In essence with regards to gravity the first order velocity terms. (Maximally symmetric Minkoskii, anti Desitter or DeSitter space would fall under one loop integrals ) These spaces the number of nonzero terms with regards to the related tensors are nimimal The higher order terms with regards to gravity kick in when spacetime is no longer maximally symmetric due to curvature. Under GR the acceleration terms reside. Now that's a poor description when it comes to loop amplitudes and power counting to determine the UV divergence. For example if all loop amplitudes are on shell in an integrated the UV divergence is zero. This can be accomplished for Maximally symmetric spacetimes . Now for higher order integrals one can typically use integrad reduction by cancelations in the numerator and denominator terms in the integrals to minimize the number of loop amplitudes. This method works with other fields in keeping the number of loop amplitudes finite. ( This is one of the steps to calculate higher loop integrands) However with spacetimes not Maximally symmetric we haven't been able to keep the number of loop amplitudes finite. In math terms when you perform loop amplitude power counting the power counting becomes infinite hence UV divergent. Example infinite density of a BH meaning infinite number of loop amplitudes which corresponds to an infinite number density of related particles (gravitons for this case, though as mentioned not necessarily required ) the propogator action would still be infinite as well.

You don't require a graviton for renormalization of gravity. The issue with gravity is the UV divergences. No effective cutoff ie singularity conditions That issue would exist even if a graviton is found. Sure discovery of a graviton would be a great assist it isn't required when it comes to GuT/TOE. In point of detail using gravitons is the method employed by Hoof'T. This is in essence the one loop integrals. It is the second order and higher order Feymann loop integrals terms that are divergent.

A ghost field for leftover terms from renormalization already exists. Pick a different name lol.

Then I would think it's safe to assume the entirety of the post is part of the joke. Lol I wouldn't want to see an experiment performed by not buying Christmas presents for your children in Santa's name to see if gifts get delivered or not.

I find it rather curious to see a post from a claimed science expert but the post itself has no evidence of applying a scientific method beyond a little historical detail.