Mordred

According to QM's Heisenburg uncertainty principle the lowest possible energy state would be the zero point energy at [latex]1/2\hbar w [/latex]. So yes you will always have fluctuations. However I should note those fluctuations have less than a quanta of energy so will not have observable "action" unless you exceed a quanta under boundary confinement. At this point you now have a real particle not a virtual

Again incorrect the Eather advocates often attempt to explain the double slit experiment. A simple explanation covering this is all particles are field excitations. The pointlike particle view is a quanta of energy under boundary confinement. (Sensei already posted the relevant formula) The wavelike properties you already agree with

your welcome it was a good question.

correct this would also hold true in any homogeneous and isotropic distribution. Both observer and emitter IF frames would be under the same conditions.

That is a peculiar seperation velocity. Neither object however is exceeding c.

Yes its called the ideal gas laws. Cosmology models the universe as a perfect fluid as it is homogeneous and isotropic. (no preferred location or direction). The FLRW metric has two main components the metric (geometry) and the fluid equations. For each matter/force field there is a corresponding equation of state. These EoS are used in the FLRW metric to determine the average temperature/density and less often pressure. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) For an accelerating expansion the driving force is the cosmological constant (aka dark energy) this particular constant is unique in that it doesn't follow the ideal gas laws in so far as its the only thing that stays constant in average density as the volume increases. ( you have no idea how much of a headache identifying the source of the cosmological constant that causes). These articles may help on above http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry A few other good references including two complete textbooks. 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 Your formulas can be found in the first link. How to use them in the last 4 links

yes he is correct a field is any collection of objects/coordinates or events. So under GR you would still have a field (coordinate/event field). Good catch I should have stated remove all matter and force/matter fields.

Good answer +1 though every answer in this thread thus far has been good. ok lets play model construct. Start with a universe with no fields or matter. You just have a volume. There is no anistropy regions so you will not have time dilation. To model this universe you would use 3d Galilean relativity. So although time does exist, there is no need to include an independent variable for time. You have an effective 3D universe. Now add fields and other particles you now develop anistropy regions and spacetime curvature comes into play. (In regards to Studiots reply, particles are field excitations). So Now you require the independent variable for time. Short answer is time is always present but how you model time depends on the fields involved and content distribution as to whether you require 3d or 4d to accurately model that universe.

So you choose to place your faith onto an idea of something literally undetectable by any experiment ? aka the eather? rather contradictory to the above quote. Then you try to apply some materialistic property to space itself. Yet space even in GR is simply volume. Spacetime curvature is a set of mathematical mass density relations one where the standard model of particles contribute to. These are incorperated into the stress tensor of the Einstein field equations via their mass contributions. If you remove all standard model particles and fields your left with just volume. (space)

Always willing to be shown wrong can you supply a reference? Edit looks like your right 2 cm/year due to tidal bulging. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.1025&ved=0ahUKEwiNvPK1lbLTAhVY9WMKHfDgCKgQFgiMATAZ&usg=AFQjCNGcYRBHea6fFVEJUjQaPju57P0csw&sig2=fSsYxcwEcfisHcEgBXDV2g Wouldn't have thought of that

The moon is moving further away due to having sufficient escape velocity to slowly migrate to a higher orbit. It is tidally locked which keeps the same facing to the Earth.

Think mass density then correlate that to the formulas used in relativity. If your on the right page this is what is described by spacetime curvature. The stress tensor in the Einstein field equations include mass density, flux and vorticity which are hydrodynamic terms. If you think about it the main difference between water and what everyone calls spacetime is simply density. Though in the latter case it is field strength/energy density. Throw a ball it will follow in essence the path of least resistance just like a boat in water or electric charge flowing through a circuit. The ball must still have sufficient kinetic energy compared to the gravitational potential energy to maintain an elevation aka escape velocity. As far as the infinitesimals this is important for accuracy. For example that thrown ball will not maintain a smooth arc. If you examine it close enough the path is actually jagged and only approximates the smooth flight path you see with the naked eye. Here you may find this interesting its Arxiv. "Relativistic hydrodynamics" https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0603009&ved=0ahUKEwjX_p6jlbHTAhVY9GMKHdUaC0kQFggaMAA&usg=AFQjCNEtth45nhE3LhiqBB4d47GuHhLigA&sig2=UftLTG0IgJCijoIEFWSKIQ an applicable line from that article. "The equations of fluid motion are then deduced from the local conservation of energy and momentum in Sec. 5. They are given there in the standard form which is essentially a relativistic version of the Euler equations."

I fail to understand the complication. A boat in water will follow the current and flow to the lower pressure eddies. Principle of least action is similar in terms of potential and kinetic energy. Though the analogy isn't exact

Truth requires study and correct understanding rather than baseless ramblings based upon personal belief. Show your evidence and calculations and you may get somewhere. As it is you have yet to supply any data or hypothesis to even make a worthwhile discussion and debate. Do neutrons exist in a nucleus the answer is yes and its easily detectable via elastic scattering reactions.

I imagine the question breaks down to particles and objects don't know...after all how can something with no consciousness know anything???? They simply respond to the environment via the principle of least action for movement. The principle of least action has been mentioned before on this thread.

The particle horizon or you may also be referring to the cosmological event horizon. Neither of which has anything to do with the OPs post

Well I'm at a loss as to what your trying to describe in your illogical word salad above. I'm strugglung to find any logical grounding behind your posts this thread. Perhaps you should start with actual dataset examples and apply the observer dependant formulas to redshift/temperature etc. As it is your posts are extremely random

Its a good book thanks for sharing

Yes typically hot Jupiter planets tend to migrate inward. Though not on every case example being our own Solar system. No they will not migrate back outward unless they somehow gain additional escape velocity. The drag causes a loss of escape velocity hence the inward migration.

Well for starters Physicists already know how to deal with observer limitations. Those same limitations confirm our universe is expanding. Simply put objects we can see, we have confirmed an expanding universe. Its not merely an illusion but also reflects on thermodynamic laws. Ie an increasing volume leads to decreasing temperature and average density. This is an important detail often overlooked. That detail itself does not depend on observer distance measurements. As far as the universe being infinite or finite is still an open question. Nothing you have posted supplies a means of determining either case. Several times you have posted " infinite view becoming finite". Which is simply put an impossibility and utter garbage. You can never have an infinite view. All views are finite never infinite. That finite view is simply our observable universe. Which encompasses the region of shared causality. I would also suggest you consider Olbers paradox. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27s_paradox

Sorry I can't find a single statement that makes any sense from above. The universe doesn't respond to an observer. How do you have an infinite view observer? Also recessive velocity above c is a seperation to distant observer misunderstanding. No single Mpc of space is exanding FTL. We only see an apparent FTL velocity due to simply adding up enough Mpcs rate of expansion per Mpc to sum up to an ftl recessive velocity. Ie from Observer to past the Hubble horizon at 4400 Mpc from the observer. At distance less the rate of expansion is less than c.

I will look at the paper in greater detail later on. Though a quick peruse of the paper has some validity. Particles being in essence field excitations. When you quantize a particle the excitation is under a boundary confinement.

Its pulses called chirp that is in the form of quadrapole waves. The chirps result from irregular distance transition changes as the two BHs approach each other in elliptical orbits.

You also have Hawking-Berkenstein radiation generated by the magnetic generation of the accretion disk. Which is a different process than Hawking or Unruh radiation. The magnetic generation being due to interparticle interactions The amount of gamma radiation of the accretion disk would be more problematic I would think however.

How does this formula even get applied when dealing with any type of particle?