Mordred

Because of the Shell theorem you can arbitrarily set any point as a CoG with regards to a homogeneous and isotropic matter distribution/ uniform

For strictly coordinate spatial change without any other considerations its time independant. There is no variable time involved. The choice of coordinates has no affect on time in regards to block. In terms of entropy this does have influence on the arrow of time via entropy

This is true to measurement as the deceleration parameter q is negative. Yet doesn't preclude the possibility of lambda changing at some future time. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deceleration_parameter Though the best of our measurements show its incredibly constant lol. I have seen some papers showing the possibility of an evolving lambda. I don't consider them strong enough to deter from the base LCDM model which has Lambda as being constant at this time. Latest research has lambda extremely constant afiak. Particularly as the Planck datasets strongly preclude a dynamical cosmological constant and has found no evidence of such. As we still haven't figured out lambda we can't rule out that possibility. Otherwise your reply is correct, I should also point out that the Hubble parameter is decreasing but this shouldn't be confused with the deceleration/acceleration parameter as long as lambda stays constant the Hubble parameter will always be positive and greater than zero. Lambda will continue to dominate

Well mathematics is definetely the lanquage of physics. One can only truly understand a subject such as relativity or quantum mechanics by understanding the underlying math. Indeed understanding the math prevents numerous misunderstandings that typically dominate the physics forum. In point of detail it is near impossible to understand the majority of physics textbooks on any physics topic without having a good mathematical basis to work from. Even the rudimentary introduction level textbooks require a certain degree of understanding calculus, differential geometry etc. Calculus made easy open source https://redirect.viglink.com/?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_148402352929112&key=6afc78eea2339e9c047ab6748b0d37e7&libId=ixr19fk3010009we000MA19cc0hjtmcbgl&loc=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.physicsforums.com%2Fthreads%2Fphysics-learning-resources.825111%2F&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.gutenberg.org%2Ffiles%2F33283%2F33283-pdf.pdf&title=Physics%20Learning%20Resources%20%7C%20Physics%20Forums%20-%20The%20Fusion%20of%20Science%20and%20Community&txt=Calculus%20Made%20Easy%20F.R.S just in case your interested. In truth I couldn't have the detailed understanding of various physics topics without understanding the math. I finished my university training several decades ago. I still find it necessary to improve my math to understand current research into various physics topics. I constantly study even to this day. Lol that study drives my wife nuts sometimes:P Lets put it this way. Certain posters on this forum has excellent math skills. Although they may not understand subjects such as relativity/QM/cosmology or particle physics. They could literally pick up any textbook on the topic. Read it once or twice and walk away with a solid understanding. They are far less likely to fall into misconceptions provided by poorly worded descriptions. They can easily master any physics topic simply because they have the required math skills

Essentially your describing a cyclic model. This is currently a possibility even with current research it is still viable.

None of this counts as evidence. Not here or in the original threads. These are all assertions. In point of detail your post above reflects connecting dots based on lack of understanding of entanglement, Cosmology and the nature of antimatter and matter. I have yet to see any evidence that supports your claims. For starters particle/wave duality has nothing to do with entanglement nor the Heisenburg uncertainty principle. These are inherent in every particle. Matter or antimatter. The main difference between the two is simply opposite charge. Nothing you have posted accounts for leptogenesis nor baryogenesis. That requires detailed mathematics. Which you have yet to provide correctly. Modelling electromagnetic fields is insufficient for this. Its a completely different dynamic. The only similarity is helicity. As Swansont mentioned you haven't shown any evidence of an antimatter dimension that we cannot detect. All particles contribute to temperature. We can see antimatter being created and annihilating from stars and we know antimatter is being created by our sun. Our planet is continously bombarded by antimatter emitted by our sun. So how can it exist in a seperate universe overlapping our own let alone being spatially seperated.? What evidence do you have of a hidden antimatter universe? Quite frankly you have a claim. Not evidence. Do you even understand the nature of a particle? All particles are field excitations. Particle/wave duality are simply different aspects of these excitations. So is all quantum numbers including charge and spin. Matter/antimatter included. The Dirac equations mentioned in the physicsoftheuniverse link you posted predicted the existence of antimatter via these field relations. Perhaps you should study them instead of making baseless assertions. The biggest problem is however misinterpreting the Feynman-Stuckelberg interpretation. This is specifically the origin of the backward in time treatment for antiparticles. However pop media definetely doesn't portray this correctly lmao. Correctly it is particle motion in coordinate time. Not proper time. There is no causality violation involved as it is a mathematical treatment of time reversal symmetry describing the probability density distribution. A more accurate interpretion is the emission absorption of a negative energy particle with momentum p as the absorption emission of a positive energy antiparticle with momentum -p. In other words a vector momentum operator under a reversal of sign. Either positive or negative direction. Which can equivalently be modelled as time reversal to remove negative mass. This is what is shown under CPT symmetry. Not that antiparticles are truly travelling backward in proper time. That would be a causality violation. In essence the time reversal symmetry is identical to a vector direction. Travelling away from or towards a coordinate. We have the same time reversal symmetry in the Lorentz group. This does not mean the spaceship travels backward in time under time reversal symmetry in relativity. Neither does a particle travel backward in time under the Feynman-Stuckelberg interpretation. Its vector direction is simply modelled as time reversal in coordinate time not proper time.

No problem its always a pleasure to help someone that listens. Particularly since I made similar errors when I tried solving the cosmological constant. Even to the point of trying BH universe conjectures. Lol I wish I had someone stop me from wasting those 5 years back then Granted I learned a lot from the effort.

That and a horizon is an anistropic and inhomogeneous structure. We need a process that is homogeneous and isotropic throughout its entire volume. By the way glad to see you pay attention to the actual physics instead of clinging to your model idea being correct. Its nice to see in Speculations +1. Couple of hints, in expansion there is no pressure/temperature gradient. There is no net flow. thermodynamically this is an adiabatic and isentropic expansion. Adiabatic meaning no net inflow/outflow of energy.

no I'm not getting the Hubble horizon confused with either the particle horizon nor the event horizon. When you get down to it all these horizons are apparent horizons based on observer location. Then again so is the BH event horizon lol. If its the same page I'm thinking of its using the critical density formula. The reason we can use that formula for this purpose is that we know our universe is extremely close to critical density.

Thats within acceptable degree of accuracy Just keep in mind that value will change everytime we use a different Hubble constant. As its a calc from the critical density formula

Your value should be roughly 7.2 ×10^-10 joules/metre^3. No expansion doesn't drive particles at greater than c. Per cubic metre the rate of expansion today is roughly 70 km/s/Mpc. The greater than c expansion term is a misnomer of seperation distance itself. Its a mathematical consequence of the formula v=Hd. This article describes it well. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell A way to think of the difference between Higgs treatment to say Unruh is to understand what conditions cause particle production. All particles are merely excitations of a field. They are simply localized anistropies within a tight volume of a field. This includes quantum fluctuations such as virtual particles. Whenever you have potential differences in a field particles are produced. In Hawkings and Unruh these potential differences is localized to the event horizons. In a global field such as our universe, treating the universe as a field, we get quantum fluctuations which can be inherent ie Heisenburg uncertainty principle or phase change symmetry breaking. The Electroweak symmetry break that led to inflation being a prime example. Its no coincidence inflation occurs at roughly the same time that the electro-weak symmetry break occurs. New particles drop out of thermal equilibrium which further affects temperature contributions. In all cases the average field strength is effectively zero on a global scale with the exception of the Higgs field itself. This is the basis for Higgs being a possibility for the cosmological constant. Here these articles better describe it. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 The research leads to a possible explanation for both inflation and the cosmological constant. In point of detail part of the same process for both. Without introducing any particle outside the standard model such as the inflaton.

Unruh radiation only occurs on cosmological horizons such as our event horizon. In essence its to account for the detail that once a particle drops from our observable portion this has implications for the energy budget. This still however leaves the problem that no particle exceeds c, Unruh radiation cannot maintain the homogeneous and isotropic distribution we see today. This would require a mechanism that is present at roughly the same dynamic at every point in our universe. Virtual particles cannot travel far enough from a cosmological horizon to account for a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. In point of detail the mean free path of a virtual particle is incredibly short compared to the real particle of the same type. A virtual particles lifetime being shorter than the real particle restricts this. The only way virtual particles can account for the cosmological constant is via some form of process occurring everywhere at once. Not at specific locations such as horizons. The speed of information exchange being c limits this possibility. The Heisenburg uncertianty would certainly qualify as occuring everywhere but led to a result of 120 orders of magnitude too much energy produced. Today one of the leading possibilities has to fo with the Higgs field and its metastability. This is as far as I know the leading possibilities for the cosmological constant. Though its still under research. The main difficulties in the cosmological constant is its homogeneous and isotropic distribution and its constancy. Thermodynamic processes simply are not constant enough to account for its constancy and distribution. Lol side note I spent 5 years trying to find a thermodynamic process that could maintain a constant homogeneous and isotropic distribution. Never did succeed. The ideal gas laws and speed of information exchange defeated every attempt I made. Yes I tried various various forms of radiation. Hawkings,Unruh and Parker. Even the inflaton which is used for inflation but once the universe reached a certain volume even the inflaton wouldn't work. During inflation the universe was small enough for the inflaton to be effective. Our universe today is simply to immense for this to be true. Using the inflaton today would require bubble horizons that propogate outward acvordingly to the speed of information exchange limit. Both Unruh and Hawking are localized to their respective systems. The mean free path and speed of information exchange is too restrictive to maintain a homogeneous and isotropic distribution that stays constant as the volume increases. Not on the scale of our universe's sheer volume. Here is a simplified analogy. Ignoring information exchange. Take a volume that is increasing. You have a constant source of energy adding to that volume. However the density will still decrease as the volume increases unless the added energy also increases to maintain a constant density. This system I just described is however inhomogeneous and anistropic not homogenous and isotropic. Matter would move outward from the source. Both Unruh and Hawking would follow this inhomogeneous and anistropic flow from their respective horizons.

Several problems that come to mind. 1) Hawking radiation only occurs when the BH blackbody temperature is higher than the blackbody temp of the surrounding universe. This hasn't occurred yet for any BH except possibly micro blackholes. 2) the Particle production of Hawking radiation will not have a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. The universal speed limit still applies. 3) there is evidence the cosmological constant was in effect immediately after inflation. Though just not dominant during the radiation/matter dominant eras. This includes time periods prior to blackholes being able to form in the first place. Including eras where the average temperature was too high for even atoms to form with stability. Let alone Stars/Bh's. Finally if you calculate the average energy density per cubic metre of the cosmological constant. You would find the energy density to be far greater than is producable by all the baryonic matter in the universe. Which is 3% the mass budget. This includes blackholes. Even if every BH was emitting Hawking radiation which we haven't found a single example that is. Every blackhole would have radiate their entire mass and still not produce enough energy to account for the total energy of the cosmological constant. The biggest killer though is no known BH has a blackbody temperature higher than the surrounding universe. None are emitting Hawking radiation as the universe is still too hot. Temperature always goes from hot to cold. Every BH is still absorbing the higher universe temperature. This would require blackholes to have less mass than that of our moon to have a blackbody temperature greater than that of our universe for Hawking radiation to start. It is precisely this reason we can neither prove or disprove Hawking radiation. No BH we have found has the right conditions to emit Hawking radiation. The above doesn't mean blackholes don't assist expansion. In fact they do, but they do so by a different mechanism. As matter collapses into structures, the global mass value decreases as matter is being condensed into anistropy regions. As the global mass density decreases the global ability of gravity to cause collapse also decreases. A matter only universe can still expand.

A beam of light would indeed show several differences between Newton and GR as light is treated differently between the two. I will wait to see your example before going further.

In Newton physics a single objects exerts a potential force. That force is simply not acting upon another object. The potential is still there. As you recall in freefall the mass of the falling object factors out. Two objects of different masses will freefall at the same rate. GR already accounts for this by stepping right into freefall motion

The expansion of the universe has no influence on the strength of gravity in large scale clusters. Galaxies, galaxy clusters etc do not expand internally due to gravity. Neither does stellar systems. So there is no increase in radius of these systems due to expansion. Expansion has nothing to do with the differences between GR and Newtons laws. The main difference between the two is GR realized the equivalence principle. In GR gravity is modelled by freefall motion. http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/equivalence_principle Objects in freefall follow spacetime geodesics. They experience no force as a result.

no Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH and the particles do not exceed c

k good glad you got it. By the time I reread the OP it was too late to think clearly lol. Glad uncool covered it. Good to know on the matrix/tensors not being on your curriculum. It will help better constrain future replies

edit bad post Just re-read this let me think about it.

This may help. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www2.ph.ed.ac.uk/~ldeldebb/docs/QM/lect8.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiw-8a6zKnRAhVcVWMKHQMzC50QFggvMAQ&usg=AFQjCNHaBacLpJQ-41rXS0L58bK_m3Y3BA&sig2=p0G0kk7RP3Dyd8tlwjGq7w http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/qmech/Quantum/node71.html Actually this article may be better in details. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-05-quantum-physics-ii-fall-2013/lecture-notes/MIT8_05F13_Chap_09.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwitj8nH0KnRAhUC7GMKHYxoCWoQFghOMA8&usg=AFQjCNHiSV17-hjfnjrbqPgfk1uzd8Jmqw&sig2=qNjM2E10sGt4RPiKRgWz4A remember [latex][\hat{L_x},\hat{L_y}]=i\hbar \hat{L_z}[/latex], [latex][\hat{L_y},\hat{L_z}]=i\hbar \hat{L_x}[/latex] [latex][\hat{L_z},\hat{L_x}]=i\hbar \hat{L_y}[/latex] these are components of a vector on a cartesian coordinate system [latex]L_x=\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&1\\0&1&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]L_y=\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2i}}\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\-1&0&-1\\0&-1&0\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]L_z=\hbar\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&0&0\\0&0&-1\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]\langle\psi|L_x|\psi\rangle=(\psi_1^*,\psi_2^*,\psi_3^*)\frac{\hbar}{\sqrt{2}}\begin{pmatrix}0&1&0\\1&0&1\\0&1&0\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}\psi_1\\ \psi_2\\ \psi_3\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]=\frac{\sqrt{\hbar}}{2}(\psi_1^*\psi_2^*\psi_3^*)\begin{pmatrix}\psi_2\\ \psi_1+\psi_3\\\psi_2\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]=\frac{\sqrt{\hbar}}{2}(\psi_1^*\psi_2\psi_2^*(\psi_1+\psi_2)+\psi_3^*\psi_2)[/latex] I'm curious how much work have you done with tensors? this seems to be where your having difficulties. Though I could be wrong on that Though if your missing the details below which I should have started with the above makes more sense [latex]\overrightarrow{L}=\overrightarrow {r}*\overrightarrow{p}=\begin{pmatrix}i&j&k\\x&y&z\\p_x&p_y&p_z\end{pmatrix}=i(yp_z-zp_y)+j(zp_x-xp_z)+k (xp_y-yp_x)[/latex] the magnitude of each component being [latex]L_x=yp_z-zp_y[/latex] [latex]L_y=yp_x-zp_z[/latex] [latex]L_z=yp_y-zp_x[/latex] hope this helps

I agree with this, teaching is a rather challenging task. The greatest expert in a field can often be the worse instructor. Part of the problem is that expert often finds difficulty understanding why a student is having difficulty understanding a particular problem which he finds simplistic. Its obvious to the instructor, who measures his success in explanation by the majority of his students comprehension. Yet seldom has the time due to constraints to individually assist those students that have difficulties grasping the same concept other students find easily understood. I myself have found that I often have to control any superiority urges when teaching. It's something I constantly remind myself about. Not that I feel superior to anyone, simply more educated on a particular topic but it is an easy trap to fall into if one isn't careful. It is also often difficult to teach a problem a student is having difficulty on while providing encouragement. This is something that takes a great deal of practice. Often a student gets discouraged when he/she realizes he is having difficulties where others are not. This in turn acts as a hindrance to that student. A good instructor will recognize this and try to encourage the student. Which more often than not requires building a sense of self confidence of how that student feels about himself. I've always found great success in confidence building when teaching. Any action that attacks a students confidence is a harmful and detrimental act when teaching.

was going to move for you but seems I can't at least not in this particular forum. As far as the topic, I've always found those that have a superiority attitude typically also lack in true self confidence. Its Ok to feel confident in one's own knowledge but it is never good to feel superior.

To add to Phi's comment. I myself am a member of numerous forums. I can tell you that scienceforums is extremely flexible compared to others. Many of the more strict forums instantly lock any threads that are not mainstream. I've even seen threads locked on other sites for a non mainstream reply that had no fault of the OP. One reason I prefer this site is that it is in fact more flexible than others I regularly visit. Over my stay here, I found this flexibility actually encourages posters to learn the mainstream sciences. Though it often doesn't seem to be the case. I've seen numerous posters here realize that their personal ideas require a better understanding of the sciences they are disputing. Those posters will ask questions on how to improve their ideas or ask where their understanding was in error. Unfortunately we also get members that have no interest in learning. Instead they deny any evidence their ideas are wrong. These are typically the threads that end up being locked. I can easily point to several threads in Speculations that although their ideas are not mainstream. Those threads have not been locked. Those posters are following the rules, they are attempting to properly model their ideas. At the same time they are learning how to do so.

Yet neither has been shown as being accurate or correct. That requires a great deal of work from both parties

This happens all the time in speculation. People always question existing physics. They go about trying to reinvent it instead of taking the time to understand the existing physics. End result, this methodology never works. Its always best to understand the existing physics before you try to change it. Particularly in classical physics. Take the time to understand inelastic vs elastic collisions. The same rules apply whether its relativistic or not. Here http://bolvan.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/2014s/collisions.pdf