Mordred

Far more common than we are able to detect

Here is the main problem with zero point energy with the above. Under QFT one learns that on a virtual particle production basis following from The Heisenburg uncertainty principle. The VP has insufficient mass and momentum to cause effective action. Particularly at [latex]\frac{1}{2}\hbar w [/latex] action (sufficient energy to cause interferance or motion) requires a minimal a quanta of energy. Zero point energy falls below this point even when you consider its vacuum expectation value

use latex as full word instead of tex.

Well thats definitely a poor way to describe it. Ok lets clarify the above a bit. First throw away the primordial atom.... Although our observable portion of the universe can extrapolated back to that volume the BB theory recognizes that the universe can be infinite. So from the hot dense state of our observable portion history all particles are in a condition called thermal equilibrium. One cannot distinquish any particle from a photon. This means we can describe this condition by strictly its temperature. Now the photon and its antiphoton pair has effectively two degrees of freedom from its spin statistics. This equates to your low entropy (particle degrees of freedom) via Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics. As the universe expands you get a cooling that allows other particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium which adds their effective degrees of freedom. Which equates to greater entropy

Good book I also have a copy

Studiot is using a particular methodology from the field potential as the mediator equivalent. Under those conditions the use of virtual particles isn't required. All particles virtual or otherwise are simply excitations under QFT. When the excitation peaks at above a quanta you have an "Observable particle." under QFT a particle of less than [latex]e=\frac{1}{2}\hbar w[/latex] Is your virtual particle group. Anything less than the above has insufficient momentum and energy to perform action. (cannot cause motion individually.) This is what makes them undetectable. Even the best idealized detection device can detect a VP. The VP itself cannot perform sufficient action on the device. However a cloud of VP can. Keep in mind a virtual photon is "off shell" it is a vector gauge boson. Which is not the same as the real photon. As per the link you provided. A charged field does act with medium like characteristics as the mass term itself used is a medium property. QFT treats all particles as wavefunctions "excitations/fluctuations" of a given field. From the link above. " Virtual particles are also viewed as excitations of the underlying fields, but appear only as forces, not as detectable particles. They are "temporary" in the sense that they appear in calculations, but are not detected as single particles. Thus, in mathematical terms, they never appear as indices to the scattering matrix, which is to say, they never appear as the observable inputs and outputs of the physical process being modelled." Comparing these two methods the only difference is whether to account for quantum fluctuations. Both use field potentials. As opposed to VP as pointlike objects

good point

How about I wish for Lasting World peace through a collective unified agreement. Gained through collective Peace talks. That beneficts everyone without harm neither physically, mentally or financial to any individual,Nation or group of people. Supported and defended by a collective agreement and monitored by a council of voted agreed upon representatives. To the equal benefict of every individual,Nation and group. Its not so much what you wish for but the conditions you define in your wish

I find this statement confusing. The best way to avoid being bamboozled by any theory or model is to literally study the math itself. I fail to see how journals that are sceptical can ever help you make an informed opinion if you never study the mathematics? Your simply placing faith in one source over another without actually understanding the underlying details. The mathematics behind SR and relativity of simultaneity isn't complex its actually fairly easily learned. You don't need tensors to understand it and make a properly formed opinion. Quite frankly heuristic explanations that try to describe a theory in laymens terms is the greatest source of misconceptions. I also have no idea what you mean by censorship. If I mathematically propose a theory. I literally want every scientist to pick it apart. Its the best way to strengthen a theory, fixing any mistakes and oversights. Competing models is often the best way to improve a model.

Thats not surprising the subject of fields is immense. There is a 1000 plus article I've spent nearly two years studying and I'm still only part way through it. http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

your welcome and feel free to ask more questions when needed

Yes both are involved. On a related scenario matter collapsing into LSS aids expansion in the same manner when you include the thermodynamic influences.

Correct but it includes the relations you quoted. On the paper though he specifies the density of matter and the cosmological constant density. Though radiation density is still involved.

The only model being used in this case is LCDM the differences in Hubble constant is the localized Hubble value for the time correlating to the past value. Roughly 7 million years ago. Whereas the Planck value is Hubble constant today

Good and well appropriate excerpts you included Studiot. Definetely well appropriate complement to the links I posted. I figured you would have a useful reference handy. Like you I prefer the textbooks to articles. I'm also giving +1 to Benders last post good example. Side link comment on that example but that example also applies in a sense to the holographic principle

The problem with the above is that matter/antimatter annihilations are detectable on large scales. Models have been proposed of antimatter universe/bubbles etc. However following the above would be a means of detectability which we have never found evidence supporting the above

Were hitting some difficult concepts to properly explain without overwhelming those who aren't familiar with field theories. So lets step back from the more complex mathematics posted thus far and review some basics. First off as a time saver please read this article on work and energy. http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/142E/10_1425_web_ppt_pdfs/10_1425_web_Lec_12_WorkandEnergy.pdf its important to understand how work is defined in terms of the vector paths. There is numerous key aspects to understand on path dependent work. Even more complex the explain is divergence theorem which includes Stokes theorem,Gauss theorem and Greens theorem. These are in essence calculus subjects covered with vector analysis. https://betterexplained.com/articles/divergence/ this link is extremely rudimentary. I obviously cannot teach entire chapters on a forum lol, so the best we can do is supply informative links This link will show just how much is truly involved in the above http://www.uvm.edu/~cems/keoughst/LectureNotes141/Topic_02_(VectorAnalysis).pdf Needless to say it takes a considerable amount of time to study Studiot may know of far better online resources to learn this stuff. I obviously can't post my textbooks lol. Now the above also relates to extremely important principle. The principle of least action. Which equates kinematic motion involving potential energy and kinetic energy. Feyman lectures has a decent rudimentary coverage of this http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/II_19.html Now if a force over a given simply connected region of space S (continuous ie no holes, ie not a donut). Can be expressed as the negative gradient of a scalar function. [latex]F=-\nabla\varphi[/latex] the minus sign denotes a conservative force now we want to know when a scalar potential function exists to answer this we need two other relations as equivalent to the above equation. [latex]\nabla*F=0[/latex] and [latex]\oint F\cdot dr=0[/latex] for every closed path in our simply connected region S. We proceed to show that each of these three equations implies the other two. Lets start with [latex]\nabla*F=0[/latex] then [latex]\nabla*F=-\nabla*\nabla\varphi=0[/latex] Now were going to need some further details that is going to take a bit lol The Laplacian of a potential. [latex]\nabla*\nabla\varphi=\begin{pmatrix}\hat{x}&\hat{y}&\hat{z}\\ \frac{\partial}{\partial{x}}&\frac{\partial}{\partial{y}}&\frac{\partial}{\partial{z}}\\\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial{x}}&\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial{y}}&\frac{\partial\varphi}{\partial{z}}\end{pmatrix}[/latex] by expanding the determinant we obtain [latex]\nabla*\nabla\varphi=\hat{x}(\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial y \partial z}-\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial z \partial y})+\hat{y}(\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial z \partial x}-\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial x \partial z})+\hat{z}(\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial x \partial y}-\frac{\partial^2\varphi}{\partial y \partial x})[/latex] With the first two equations and the last equation we get [latex]\oint F\cdot dr=-\oint\nabla\varphi\cdot dr=-\oint d\varphi[/latex] Now [latex]d\varphi[/latex] gives way to [latex]\varphi[/latex] since we have specified a closed loop and we get zero for every closed loop path in our region S. AS long as we are dealing with an uncharged scalar field does this above analysis apply. So the only two points we need to concern ourselves with is the start and finish end points regardless of path taken ,start point A, end point B So work done by force is [latex]\int^b_a F\cdot dr=\varphi (a)-\varphi (b)[/latex] Neat we immensely simplified all the above now lets quickly show Newtons law [latex]F_g=-\frac{Gm_1m_2\hat{r}}{r^2}=\frac{k\hat{r}}{r^2}[/latex] as the force is radially inward integrating the first equation from infinity to r we obtain [latex]\varphi_g r-\varphi{\infty}=-\int^r_\infty F_g\cdot dr=+\int^\infty_r F_g\cdot dr[/latex] from this last equation we can see that the vector components is shown under a change in sign so when you have gravity the integral on the RHS of the last equation is negative so [latex]\varphi_g r=-\int^\infty_r\frac{k dr}{r^2}=-\frac{k}{r}=-\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r}[/latex] the negative sign denotes gravity is attractive. k is a curvature constant ie negative curvature (gravity well). I'll let you think about that and the term manifold in regards to the above. The above is a lesson from Arfkens " Mathematics for physicists" It is an excellent textbook that doesn't deal directly with any model such as GR, QM etc but teaches the required math to understand those models https://www.amazon.ca/Mathematical-Methods-Physicists-Comprehensive-Guide/dp/0123846544

Thanks for the links helps the discussion alot. The difference between the Planck value and the one the paper uses shouldn't have too much influence on the findings. The value is most likely more reflective of the late time Hubble flow value. Hubbles constant is only constant everywhere at a particular time slice. Over time it does vary. The calculator on my signature in the H/H_0 column reflects this detail.

Though it is refreshing

Correct not that its important but cause also includes inertial change

Affect vs cause hrrm lets leave that to philosophy. All mass including your head contribute under the sum of mass. Though I have no idea how much mass your head has lol. You can use Newtons gravitational law to calculate how much influence it would have over a given radius. You will find its contribution would be considered neglibible.

[latex]7.176*10^8[/latex] light years

Roughly 220 Mpc from us, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dipole_repeller In regards to the push action this isn't due to gravity. It involves key relations between energy density and pressure. In essence the thermodynamic relations can overcome the localized gravity. Much the same way as to our universe expansion itself.

The gravitational force has infinite range but its strength falls off at 1/r^2. At some range the interaction strength will be insufficient to cause kinematic motion. Range will vary according to the masses involved.

Myself I would use the word relations. Just cuz I see some weird posts coming from the word behavior. lol too much time reading speculations forum