Mordred

Truthfully I never think of anyone as dummies though lol regardless of how crazy some posters sound in Speculation. One might believe the graviton would solve the issue but unfortunately that's not true. A good example using stellar objects is the singularity condition of a BH at R=0. We do not know any limit to the mass term nor a limit on mass density. In math speak we have no effective UV (ultraviolet cutoff). We do have an effective IR (infrared cutoff). One of the easiest example to learn renormalization is the quantum harmonic oscillator. If one resolves the integrals at every possible coordinate in momentum space one would get infinite energy. So we must apply some form of renormalization to prevent this (Pauli Villars method being the easiest) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli–Villars_regularization https://fma.if.usp.br/~burdman/QFT1/lecture_23.pdf The last link will detail a one loop integral and regularization/renormalization. Unfortunately the paper by Hooft is tricky to read in format but it's one of the higher cited articles on renormalizing gravity for one loop but not higher loop. https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf

Divergent free under loop integrals. We can keep one loop integrals divergent free not second loop or higher integrals regardless of normalization or dimensional regularization method. Unfortunately to understand that one must be familiar with Feymann integrals. Though when one learns renormalization one learns the renormalization scheme is arbitrary for mathematical convenience. You can choose any method for example with the EM field etc.

Yes what of it? Its not sufficient to overturn QFT. Have you looked at Mosely law for orbitals under spectography and ever noticed the law required corrections even though the law was originally developed under the Bohr model ? There is numerous experimental examples where the Bohr model does not work. A very commonly known one is the spin of an electron exceeding c under the Bohr treatment. I recognize you reached your first day limit on posts. Swansont already addressed the other points you made. I'm hoping with 45 pages most of those pages roughly 50 percent or greater has the applicable mathematics and not reliant on pictures and verbal descriptives without mathematical detail. In the mean time you might consider looking at some of the more recent images of atoms you can clearly see the structure does not match the Bohr model. However none of this changes what a TOE entails. I have zero hope you found a means to renormalize gravity or done a running of the coupling constants to unify the four fundamental forces. If you had then post your Langrangian statement

Truth of the matter, if Speculative posters understood that a TOE is a completed grand unification theory where all four forces become symmetric and indistinct from one another. We likely would never see a TOE thread. They would hit the inability to renormalize gravity beyond one loop integrals.

I hate to break this to you but what you have though is impressive in detail isn't what is meant by a TOE under physics treatment. You can also throw away any Bohr model of atoms. Particles are not little bullet like objects. QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects

Anyone that relies on ChatGPD isn't learning anything. In point of detail far more likely to get misinformed and misled. I would have thought better progress would have been made since this threads origin. Let's try a different angle in terms of entropy (Used for ordered to disordered systems.) I have some system state doesn't matter what it is. A system where all motion is identical. This can be described as one effective degrees of freedom. Under some influence you start getting motion in different directions. Each new direction adds another effective degree of freedom however there is methods to limit the random motions to the effective degrees of freedom (part of dimensional reduction) one might state that's simply for ease of calculations but it goes beyond that. For example take a stick a keep one end on the ground. You can limit all the possible movements to just 2 spatial dimensions. Those two dimensions will also equate to the angle if the stick so there isn't any need to count the angle as a degree of freedom. The angle isn't an independent movement. I recommend you start with mechanical systems for degrees of freedom before tackling effective degrees of freedom under the SM model. (Directly relates to gauge groups ). The above can also be applied to brownian motion. You know you are on the right track if you can answer why the entropy immediately after the BB using Maxwell-Boltzmann is only 2.

For fusion there is a useful relation that determines the ignition temperature called Lawson criterion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion This is the point where fusion is self sustaining ie net energy exceeds supplied energy.

As no one expresses an interest in having this diagram in one of the locked threads above. I will let the proposal go.

I have to admit the design is intriguing we will have to see how it works outside the simulation.

The Planck probe is designed specifically for CMB measurements with the filter arrays it's equipped with. For its use with standard candles for example it would need a substantial overhaul.

I have come across papers using methods such as F(R) gravity to eliminate the need for DM they typically don't look far enough. Example they will focus on rotation curves but not look into early universe DM needs such as early universe LSS formation.

Well in this instance the cosmocalc in my signature can perform the common calculations of the FLRW metric and allows one to play around with the cosmological parameters. It has a few preset parameters such as the Planck dataset , WMAP etc. It will also allow future predictions up to 80 Billion years into the future assuming nothing changes in terms of the parameters. Though there are a few tricks. One trick is that the blackbody temperature of the CMB is the inverse of the scale factor. So if you know the scale factor at a particular cosmic time then it's trivial to calculate the blackbody temperature at that time. The metric wasn't designed that way it was later discovered that trick works. Referring to the FLRW metric not the calculator.

The evidence against that view show otherwise but as mentioned it's a rapid expansion not an explosion. I've spent 35 years examining the evidence and understanding the mathematics pertaining to Cosmology including any related SM particle processes in particular the universe evolution from 10^{'43} seconds to CMB. I too have credentials in physics in both Cosmology and particle physics. Higher credentials in Cosmology my study focus has always been early Universe processes. That includes nucleosynthesis which forms the CMB. Wait one of those pieces of evidence counter to your scientists claim ( scientist doesn't necessarily mean physicist ) or physicist directly involved in astrophysics or Cosmology. To electroweak symmetry breaking with regards to TOE. So when it comes to what's required for a theory of everything I can certainly show you the correct direction. Though you would need to understand the Euler Langrangian equations of the Standard model. If your willing to learn I can teach you the basics behind the FLRW metric it's actually quite a simple geometry to work with. One common misconception is LCDM is not just the FLRW metric. It's any mathematical method used to describe a homogeneous and isotropic expansion using the ideal gas laws of thermodynamics for a baryotropic (isentropic and adiabatic) expansion. This is done via the equations of state for matter, radiation and Lambda. LCDM employs a wide range of theories and mathematics. lets start with the geometry I stated above that we need a homogenous and isotropic expansion. The metric that satisfies this is the FLRW metric \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a(\tau)^2[\frac{d\tau^2}{1-kr^2}+r^2(d\theta^2+si^2+sin^2\theta d\phi^2\] homogeneity and isotropy must satisfy the above equation. Now there is a different format where its easier to see the 3d space components from the proper time components and scale factor. \[ds^2=-d\tau^2+a^2(\tau)\begin{cases} d\psi^2+sin^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2)\\ dx^2+dy^2+dz^2\\ d\psi^2+sinh^2\psi(d\theta^2+sin^2\theta (d\phi+sin^2\theta d\phi^2) \end {cases}\] on the far right you can see the 3 dimensional Euclidean geometries for the commoving volume. The top line is positive curvature, the second is flat spacetime, the latter is negative curvature for values k=1,0,-1 of the first equation. \(\tau\) being proper time (cosmological time to a commoving observer with expansion. This ties the observer to the scale factor \(a(\tau)\). however the above is just the geometry the Friedmann also include the acceleration equation determined by the equations of state. \[\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G_N}{3}(\rho+3p)\]

Yes towards the common barycenter though which is the effective center of mass. However the universe has no center of mass. Mass is uniformly distributed at sufficient large volumes 100 Mpc.

Your descriptive unfortunately is inaccurate . The static you get on radios is detecting the CMB. It was unwanted static that couldn't be eliminated that led to detection of the CMB. The CMB would not even exist if the universe wasn't expanding. ( I know you agree that it is from our discussions) Our Observable universe we on Earth are the observers and all observations are relative to the observer. So our Observable universe is defined by our observations. Region of shared causality is the literal meaning behind Observable universe. A different observer at another location will have a different region of shared causality. No location can any observer state his observations from any locale is more special or different than any observations made from a different location. (Homogeneous by definition) You apply vectors to all particle motion. There is no inherent direction such as radiating outward from a common point. Isotropy no preferred location. Combined this forms the Cosmological Principle. If you want an analogy picture an observer in the middle of an ocean. His limit of observation being the curvature of the Earth roughly 20 km to the horizon line. This is true no matter where on that ocean that observer is provided they are far enough from land. That's the case with cosmology. We do not know how big the entire universe is. It could be finite or infinite. We only know the Observable portion of our universe (region of shared causality). We know that isn't the entire universe so stating we're at the center of the universe would be inaccurate when we can't even state our entire Observable universe is at the center. We have no means of ever confirming our Observable universe location in the entire universe. Let alone ever getting measurements beyond the particle horizon. Another way to think of it we cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction we are inside the region described by the BB and with expansion that region is gaining volume.

That's a consequence of separation distance and Hubble law "the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity" However that isn't a kinetic based velocity hence doesn't violate GR with greater than c recessive velocity. The rate of expansion per Mpc is roughly 70 km/sec/Mpc PS this is described in the Brian Powell article I posted earlier.

Let me put it this way every professional physicist understands that a TOE describes precisely what I stated and any professional peer reviewed article will have the related mathematics involving running of the coupling constants. Nothing is random assertions in physics for the record even something as mass, energy, time has specific mathematical connotations. This goes as well for any privileged location such as a center of the universe. No location mathematically has any advantage

One problem I always see when I see a thread on theory of everything. A theory of everything must have all the applicable mathematics and unify all 4 forces (running of the coupling constants) in order for that to happen all 4 forces must be renormalizable. We can unify EM, strong and weak force we cannot unify nor renormalize gravity. Unless you can do the above it's not a theory of everything. There is no other viable alternative. That is the requirement.

Were not talking random velocities of galaxies in terms of expansion. Every object has its own inertia. When dealing with expansion your looking at the mean average separation distance. Any object gravitationally bound is not expanding for example you and I are not expanding nor is a local large scale structure such as our local group, galaxies themselves etc. Expansion arises from the voids between gravitationally bound objects and due to the effective energy densities.

There's plenty of proof of expansion that proof doesn't necessarily involve redshift either. Though that's the more commonly known. Another proof is the universe itself cooling down over time due to expansion and the thermodynamic laws in regards to an adiabatic and isentropic expansion. The calculator in my signature can perform all the major FLRW metric calculations in proper distance. It will even show that the Hubble constant is decreasing even though expansion is accelerating. After work I cam readily detail the mathematics but I have a couple of articles for you to read. ://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 The balloon analogy by Phinds is one of the better ones done in addressing common misconceptions with regards to balloon analogy. The Brian Powell article is from a Cosmologist (I personally know online when he used to visit another forum). The lineweaver and Davies paper is highly cited and part of their dissertation paper.

No expansion has no inherent direction all directions you measure expansion occurs equally. A 3d analogy is the raisin bread analogy.

It isn't an explosion it's a rapid expansion of spacetime. Think of a gas by analogy and with volume change lower the density. A center implies radiating outward from a common origin There is zero evidence of any directional component in expansion hence the Balloon analogy. A directional expansion center outward would have angles changing between any three or points of reference. Expansion none of the angles change and all distances change equally. The only way that can happen is a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. No preferred location nor direction. That is what all observational evidence shows.

DanP posted a link in another thread in Speculation DM that directly details the final parsec problem. https://www.livescience.com/space/black-holes/final-parsec-problem-supermassive-black-holes-impossible-solution Unfortunately I dont see the actual paper but at least the link supplies clues to what to look for Edit found a paper https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0212270&ved=2ahUKEwj0mrqn04iIAxVzIDQIHR0YJhUQFnoECBcQAQ&usg=AOvVaw3ZhRad7UA8MO8CMW

The final parsec problem came up in another thread but we didn't have a reference so thanks for the link.

Plausible if I recall the paper suggested its still sinking to our core.