Mordred

Glad to be of help, no worries I'm often ahead. Simply due to years of active study. I fully understand how long it truly takes to fully understand the materials I provide. I've read tons of various papers, textbooks etc. So much of it is simply being aware of different applicable treatments. Though much of it also applies to my studies.

Either way simply understanding Pati-Salam is incredibly useful in cosmology and particle physics related studies. In particular the symmetry groups. Hehe

Might I also suggest you tie in Pati-Salam for its methodologies regarding charge, parity etc and its applications under guage groups for helicity etc. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pati%E2%80%93Salam_mode Here is Pati-Salam a la SO(10) though Salam also applies to the SM groups via [latex]\mathbb{Z}^2[/latex] as applied to the SU(2) groups left and right hand states. (arxiv) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0204097&ved=0ahUKEwi8_M235cHWAhUUTmMKHY73CAwQFggdMAA&usg=AFQjCNGACL5BvGOGBQARSFfQxUM-Rd3npQ

I've run into it in a few of my studies, not too terrifically familiar with its proof. However usually see it applied to numerous condensate applications.

Sounds to me like the Gross-Pitaevskii equation is applicable to the above. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://cmt-qo.phys.ethz.ch/wp-content/uploads/teaching/qg/Chapter_03.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiC6N-03MHWAhVV7WMKHZMkDzAQFggiMAA&usg=AFQjCNFbn6Xd3XZfuxxzadu8nqLrXZAjCA The application is the condensate wave function mean field, which will tie into the elastic cross scatterings and the above statistics. note already applies QM and HUP

lol evidentally I need not answer, good question and answer.

Your understanding above is reasonably accurate, you have the essential gist of them in so far as being too short-lived due to insufficient energy to exceed a quanta in value

I fully agree there, takes a change in thinking but believe me it certainly makes any field theory I have ever studied far easier to understand. Here is a lecture by Sean Caroll describing the field excitation descriptive. there is a pinned thread on this forum with a discussion on the topic. Just a side note as someone who has extensively studied SO(10) with regards to the Higgs field. Sean is absolutely right it would be impossible to understand how it gives rise to mass without understanding the particle as a field excitation.

A particle isn't anything like a golf ball. There is no corpuscular aspect to a particle. The pointlike properties of a field excitation (particle) is defined by the Compton wavelength. It is in essence a probability of a field value in excess of a quanta of energy under boundary confinement. With definable quantum numbers that also correspond to wavefunctions. Lose the image of solid

Its not about knowing what time is. Its about how we use time as defined by rate of change of events that is important. How measurements are influenced by other factors that affect measurements involving change of rate. It isn't about identifying time, that is simply a property of rate of change or duration. The correct definitions matter in my previous post, because one must understand how time is being described under relativity to understand the mathematics of SR and GR (as well as the FRW). Not to understand what time is but to understand how measurement data etc is affected by time as per changes in rate measurements. The easiest way to understand time dilation is literally no different than understanding propogation delays in electromagnetic field interactions in everyday circuits. It involves different fields but other than that essentially identical process Just as the FRW metric does not describe how the universe began, prior to 10^-43 seconds its equations are no longer applicable. It describes how the universe evolves since then. Not how the universe is created... GR is all about how different field interactions affect all information exchange rates in any signals we receive and rates of exchange between interactions and how multi particle systems self interfere with those exchange rates. It is not about identification. Nor stating time is some fundamental entity. It is a property

As long as you treat proper time along the Worldline as per GR then were on the same page via definitions under GR. The FLRW metric worldline is influenced by thermodynamic adiabatic and isentropic expansion. You already recognize this from our previous conversations. There is numerous bodies of evidence supporting expansion than simply redshift and worldlines. This is not to say using the SR definition is wrong under SR, its definitions are wrong when discussing the FRW metric which follows the GR proper time definition. Conformal or cosmological time are simply fundamental observers under coordinate time with a specified relation to the field potential

I thoroughly enjoyed that paper myself, A large part of it ties into your numerous threads, figured you would find it as highly informative as I did

lets address time on your watch, under SR the assumption is that you are in the same reference frame as your watch. However we know this is not true, you as the observer is in a different (though extremely close) frame of reference to your watch. Under GR we recognize that it is literally impossible to be in precisely the same rest frame... So in GR all frames are inertial, there is no "rest frame" there is no preferred frame. The only invariant values is along the worldline itself, You do not read proper time when you look at your watch, You read the coordinate time.

The problem is proper time under GR is the time a clock has following the worldline, coordinate time is the Inertial frames. Under SR this is not true, proper time is observers in the same at rest inertial frames. So when you use 1 s/s we get zero distictions of which is which and under SR or GR. You must keep these straight otherwise confusions occur. Not recognizing this distinction is also preventing you from understanding the differences involved in Conformal time/ Cosmological time so unless you learn to keep these different metric time values straight you will continue to run into problems when comparing metrics and redshift. The problem with SR on the satellite is that SR uses (at rest observers as propertime) but under GR it is coordinate time not proper

Your still ignoring the differences between SR and GR. As long as you keep doing so you will never understand why your article has so many errors. Guths model uses the thermodynamic equations of state correlating a potential scalar field with anistropic conditions arising from that scalar field fluctuations. The field baseline of that is a false vacuum state that undergoes quantum tunnelling to a lower vacuum state. (Your not ready to understand quantum tunnelling, no insult but many university students has difficulty understanding tunnelling.) The 1 s/s is meaningless, use proper terminology. proper time/coordinate time they both use seconds so the statment s/s does not identify which s is proper and which s is coordinate time, Ajb and I both mentioned this to you in your previous attempts. You must identify which is which. (correctly as per SR then under GR) as the two terms change in their definitions under the SR to GR metric.

Oh my that last link is incredibly misleading when it comes to Ads/Cft lol. Not surprising as one cannot explain degree of freedom reductions too well to the public. Here you have decent enough math skills, lets save some time Ads/CFT introductory https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.4319

The answer to number two is no. Collapse of any wavefuction entangled or not is due to interference ( either constructive or destructive) of an interaction with said wavefunction. Uncertainty is not an interference, it is an uncertainty of the measurement itself not an interference

any form of redshift is a type of time dilation on signals recieved by an observer. You are effectively seeing an observational influence on the waveforms that affects the frequency rates. The difference between the three main types of redshift is the "cause of the shift" In cosmological redshift the cause being a volume change, with gravitational it is due to changes in potential, with doppler it is velocity changes. This is one area where you have struggled, science already considers all potential observer influences thanks to relativity. The trick is seperating what causes the redshift and by how much. It is incorrect to think of it as a slower past however. An observer placed in the same past moment will not see any time dilation due to the field distribution. Time dilation arises because of differences in potential and differences in position to a field. So take any particular moment of time, at that particular moment. Ie right now, The global field metric, *spacetime is on average uniformly distributed, so you have no gradient, so no time dilation at time now of a field metric. Every second of our universe expansion the homogenous and isotropic distribution is preserved. So it is not the higher density of the past giving rise to redshift ( there is no gravitational gradient for gravitational redshift to occur) Rather it is a higher density change of a field giving rise to cosmogical redshift due to changes of the global metric. One must keep these seperate. It is the cause of the redshift that is critically important. The above isn't very clear, so lets look specifically at the difference. Gravitstional redshift. redshift due to potential difference due to gradients within the distribution of a field ( gravitational gradients) ie planets, BH ext. The time of the observer depends on the position of the observer to the position of the emitter at two coordinates on this static field. (if no gradient exists between the two no dilation) they both enjoy the same moment of proper time. ( key note proper time and coordinate time is set different between SR and GR treatment for this reason.) Cosmology redshift use GR not SR. The reason is that SR works for a static field where the FRW metric the field itself is changing, it is no longer static. So one cannot use the static Schwartzchild metric that SR enjoys. Hence the commoving coordinates and the scale factor. ( the field still remains homogeneous and isotropic but the coordinates of the volume is changing, whereas under SR the coordinates are fixed ( static). Never think of one point on a field gradiant as being slower in time than another point on a gradiant. An observer at the same point sees time running normally. It is the differences in position upon the field gradient ( or due to field changes) from emitter to observer that gives rise to dilation.

Ground state is best treated as whatever the global metric field value is. You set that non zero value as zero to maintain the symmetry relations of your group dynamics. Also for the potential energy calculations in relation to the field. ( potential energy arising due to position relative to the field.) Another field with non zero ground state for an example is the Higgs field. (always look for the compared to) However you are right in that zero does not always mean zero, it is the set value so one can compare one object to the other. You already noted that once you account for field fluctuations due to HUP no field is truly zero, Zero point energy is the effective minima, it is simply set as zero.

Here is a decent article on the Raychaudhuri equations to the above Once again arxiv (phone) https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0611123&ved=0ahUKEwjqqKOJ-7rWAhWrhFQKHfleBHMQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNGRlFqQlIDprhJ94mKefjXR1smlLw I don't know if you do any mathematica but if so you will find this a bit handy for the Mohr's circle to torsion https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://web.mit.edu/course/3/3.11/www/modules/trans.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiSkraL87rWAhXhs1QKHZS5CzkQFggfMAE&usg=AFQjCNFI48MwB7AwXYOKzpDAWuPAx4ZPkw there is some excellent sections with regards to hydrodynamics in "Elements of Astrophysics"

Now that is a good suggestion, lets get back to the physics. Which quite frankly does not rely on beliefs.

"Artifacts of a metric" being related

Now look into the affect of the above to the corresponding right hand rule with regards to stresses due to torsion. Though that is already accounted for in the references and above via the spin density edit or more accurately the stress tensor, in other words make sure you preserve the right hand rule in your model development. Lol in your case probably needless of that reminder

Better to understand the fields gives rise to particle production rather than the descriptive of the last paragraph, this corresponds to the zero energy baseline. The Dirac equations correlate from this baseline to the production of the particle/anti particle pairs. Use the katra, particles are field excitations. Yes entangled states are involved but not on causing production, entanglement arises due to correlations upon pair production, which to preserve numerous conservation under the Eightfold Wayen, ie charge, energy-momentum, lepton number , parity etc provide critical aspects to the entanglement correlation functions. A collapse occurs when one or the other entangled particle experiences any form of interference. A direction to understand the last is constructive and destructive interference of waveforms. Your QFT creation/annihilation operators for particle production follows the same principle.

I couldn't have explained the above better, excellent quality post. Useful hint non uniform field values gives rise to work potential, binding energy resists these changes so is also involves work. energy is the ability to perform work