Mordred

Mass and energy are flip sides of the same coin. Matter however is fermionic particles. Bosons are not matter.

No both are equally accurate. The difference is simply an arbitrary choice in vector sign. One can readily use either metric with equal accuracy. The arbitrary choice is simple, in the FLRW metric at the time the formulas were being developed. Hubble showed the universe was expanding. So the metric reflects this under the sign choice. With gravity we know it causes contraction so the arbitrary choice was chosen to reflect contraction. The only difference between the two is the sign choice. Ie which dynamic to make positive vectors are symmetric when you change directions to the opposite you only need to change the sign plus or minus. The main detail of my last post is simply to point out. One cannot arbitrarily think greater curvature or higher energy density means greater gravity. The cosmological constant is one case where this isn't true.

Its also a good way to discuss what models actually state instead of the numerous misunderstandings and misconceptions. A good example is the many worlds interpretation in QM. The pop media descriptions tend to give the wrong meaning. The purpose is simply to define superposition (which is a statistical mathematical term). If we didn't point out errors we would be encouraging wrong thinking and furthering misunderstandings. So I disagree we should take every post seriously. We should point out obvious errors. After all every post is being read by members and non members that aren't even involved in the thread.

An important distinction. Observed in QM means to interfere via measurement in essence. Take for example probing the postion of an particle. You essentially need to fire other electrons into a confined region and look at the interference patterns.. In essence the very act required to measure a particle causes interference.

Yes there are models that propose alternate universe style dimensions. Unfortunately the common misconception is that every model does so past 4 dimensions. Good example being string theory. It is important to understand the difference

That would be extremely helpful. You can find many of the formulas you will need here. http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 Part 2 is your relativistic aspects

Ease of survivability. Evolution change is only sucessful if it leads to greater survivability. However not all evolution changes are beneficial. If I recall correctly wisdom teeth is a good example its an evolutionary change that causes problems rather than giving greater survivability. With regards to the this thread this is one example of change that doesn't involve environmental change. Change occurs naturally regardless of the environment. It is natural selection (survivability that decides which changes stick around through reproduction)

Close but we have to be careful here, curvature can be positive or negative. Gravity under the FLRW metric will correspond to negative curvature. However under GR its modelled as positive curvature. The difference is in how the two metrics treat curvature. Under the FLRW metric positive curvature leads to expansion with negative curvature a contraction. Both involve the equations of state (details the pressure influence due to a particles kinetic energy.) The difference between GR (Einstein field equations ) and the FLRW metric amounts to just a change in vector direction (change in sign) between the two metrics. Under GR which is a localized curvature under the FLRW greater positive curvature is your higher gravity. The cosmological constant in both the FLRW and the Einstein field equations is the reverse curvature. (in GR it acts as an anti gravity) but this isn't the correct way to think of it. The correct way is to apply its pressure influence via its equation of state. The cosmological constant has EoS of w=-1. Which means its kinetic energy causes on essence negative pressure or vacuum. So while the energy density is still positive its pressure influence is the reverse compared to matter and radiation (photons etc). In this case higher energy density of the cosmological constant leads to greater expansion. While matter and radiation higher energy density leads to greater contraction. So from the last paragraph we can see higher energy density does not necessarily mean greater gravity. (it does in all cases except the cosmological constant) which has a negative pressure influence. Neither does greater spacetime curvature necessarily mean greater gravity. (normally true except with the pesky cosmological constant) which can literally the curvature sign (positive/negative)

Lets clarify a bit on what counts as a GUT. First you must determine the coupling constants for each force. Second you must determine what interactions are viable on all particle decays. 3rd you must determine at what temperature each coupling constant reaches thermal equilibrium 4th you need to model with math all of the above. You must make the correlations to the eightfold wayen, the baryon octet, meson nonet. 5th you need to match the predictions for gravity under SO (1.3) Poisson group and the Lorentz group. None of these steps are done in your drawing. Here is the basis behind GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES In essence your drawing is literally meaningless in physics.

Yes a force can be exerted between two massless particles.

Excellent questions

Feel free to use electrodynamics. Its a common circuit to use field interactions to cause signal delay aka interference. Interference requires work. So does changing a frequency of any signal/excitation. PS the photon is the gauge vector boson for the electromagnetic field. Lets use an analogy to describe kinematic motion due to photons. 1) Every particle has energy...think about this and the definition of energy (the ability to perform work.) 2) just like the electromagnetic field proximity rather than direct collision can also cause force. 3) matter is a rather meaningless term in particle physics. (side note under ideal gas laws Einstein Crystal lattice is a good mathematical guideline) anyways matter has a requirement (taking up space) google Pauli exclusion principle. So only fermions count as matter. 4) matter exerts no pressure (force per unit volume) under cosmology the equation of state for matter is zero. This is due to matters lack of kinetic energy aka momentum. 5) photons despite not having rest mass do have inertial mass. As far as pressure influnce photons has a greater pressure influence than matter. Far greater kinetic energy. Which is completely opposite of force requiring matter. Force only requires the amount of energy to perform the required work. Bosons are the mediator particles for your force fields ie electromagnetic..being photon. We know force field interactions exert force under Newton

well ok ya got me the steel ball is more dense Good catch completely slipped my mind lol +1 always love an accurate correction.

Science isn't a religion. Perhaps your not explaining yourself well again? There is no patent ob a formula. Einstein knew this before he published.

Ya know I'm gonna award a +1 on your research into Einsteins credentials. Excellent research. Still doesn't change the detail Einstein was probably more than aware the cosmological constant was problematic. Personally I feel that he would be truly proud that his contributions to those links and is of fundamental importance in all of them. Even to this day despite the cosmological constant his works are of immense importance. He probably would never would have expected his works to so robust. (personal opinion) Precisely

Well it certainly isn't likely a robot will replace a politician. Guess they are out of luck on "build your own work for me bots" lol

There is no patent for an equation...The given name for an equation is strictly honorary

Take it from someone that has studied string theory including the nitty gritty mathematical details. The above still applies. The higher dimensions in string theory are imbedded geometries. The dimensions are degrees of freedom due to different interactions. This is a differential geometry technique fundamental in symmetry grouping. In other words mathematical dimensions not dimension from science fiction ie different overlapping universes.

Your welcome

Lol I find this kind of amusing. I lost count how many times I have seen you post " We should update our equations" in other posts by you. I thought you would be happy seeing an example where we have done just that. Sorry couldn't resist Still laughing

For a thesis paper you want to apply Pati-Salam. Recall the only difference between a particle/antiparticle pair is charge. The left hand right hand rules are incoroerated into your Pati-Salam symmetry groups. Which follows chirality and helicity as applied to spin. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicity_(particle_physics) Pati-Salam incorporates these two aspects under SO (10). edit ignore chiral theory where its theorized a difference between the left/right hand. For the purpose of this thread its off topic. The general rules and formulas still applies. Your proton spin magnetic dipole moment formulas can be found here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_magnetic_moment

Why would you think that? No physicist is ever the final authority. No equation is set in stone. Theories and models are adaptive hence the sheer power of mathematics. We still call it the Einstein field equations as he is acreddited with the original work. This does not mean we throw out the entire work simply because we had to adapt it or ignore the contributions of the original.

Yes the first part is correct. The cosmological constant did drop from the equations for a time. However when we discovered the acceleration due to aka dark energy the cosmological constant was reintroduced however its purpose is not identical. Ie its now used to account for the added expansion rate. Side note some older textbooks have the FLRW metric without Lamnda those equations were later fixed in newer textbooks. (This happens to be one example where equations have been upgraded from its origin )

static universe (eternal) the belief of the time was an eternal universe not expanding or contracting. That discovery came out later via Hubble prior to Hubble's discovery Einstein used the cosmological constant to model a static eternal universe. (ps before the typical next question. No big bang in an eternal static universe.)

Einstein originally used the cosmological constant to make the universe static. His original model without it predicted a contracting or expanding universe. He originally didn't like that so attempted to make his equations lead to a static solution. That was his blunder.