Mordred

Speculation forum has rules, one of those rules when posting a model or theory is showing the associated math. Lets try this I'm familiar with both LCDM galaxy (dark matter rotation curves) as well as MOND. You wish to introduce your variable rotation curve. How can I the reader compare your idea to the two without the formula for comparison? I can't so I have no basis to test your model...

One of my favourite articles in my collection. Good pick AJB

You've got so many questions that it would be difficult to answer directly. An article that may help is here as it deals with fiber bundles with the Levi ceveti connection and U(1) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=5&rct=j&q=fiber%20bundles%20and%20quantum%20theory&ved=0ahUKEwjB2sv9i5LKAhUE6GMKHVRWAw4QFggzMAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fphysics%2F0005051&usg=AFQjCNFXLchCy1CAWURhJ-kdCxG9FabipA&sig2=b7whyKZ3vSmAZIbYSo9qyA Some of the notation above seems off but I can't put my finger on it.

Roughly 70 km/sec/Mpc in non gravitational bound voids is the rate of expansion. One Mpc is 3261563.78 light years. You can use the lightcone calculator on my signature to see the expansion history. Use the formula [latex]v=H_OD[/latex] In the above 70 or 74 depending on dataset your using Hubbles constant varies a bit between them. Lol 74*(90,000,000 ly/3261563.78 ly)=km/sec/Mpc

It's not even the correct method to calculate. You need to compare how much work at a particular point gravity does compared to the cosmological constant in joules/metre. Expansion only occurs when the cosmological constant exceeds gravity in joules/metre. You didn't account for mass in the above. Not positive what your asking here, but if your asking if the energy/mass equivalence of DE can accumulate to assist in breaking galaxies from clusters the answer is no. The reason being DE is too evenly distributed. On all sides of a galaxy the energy/mass is the same. So the amount of mass of DE on the left side of a galaxy will be the same on the right side. In effect they will cancel out. Hence why galaxies gain no inertia due to expansion.

It's simply a matter of energy density. The cosmological constant is per cubic metre extremely weak. Roughly 6.0 *10^-10 joules per cubic metre. Local to galaxy clusters gravity can easily overpower this weak influence. The distance where galaxies would remain gravitationally bound would vary with the mass of each galaxy. However you can do your own calculations. Simply take the mass of the galaxy. Force of gravity falls of at 1/r^2. Find when it's force becomes nearly negligible( roughly 6.0*10^-10 Newtons. Convert Newtons to joules/metre. 1 joule/metre=1 Newton

I think the problem your having is that recessive velocity used in Hubbles law is inaccurate. Hubble didn't know why galaxies were receding. He only knew that the greater the distance the more apparent it became. We're stuck using velocity as a result. However none of the galaxies gain momentum in any fashion due to expansion. The separation distance does increase. However it does so without imparting momentum. You can however accurately consider it an apparent acceleration. As long as you realize it's not a true acceleration or velocity.

[latex]v_{recessive}=H_{o}d[/latex]. Recessive velocity as Strange pointed out is an apparent not a true velocity no inertia is involved. Think of it this way....Take a galaxy then surround that galaxy with a homogeneous and isotropic medium. That medium being the interstellar medium. Now we know f=ma from the three laws of inertia. So ask yourself this if the medium surrounding all galaxies is uniform meaning there is no pressure difference on any angle or direction. Then f=ma cannot be applied. Instead the increased distance can only be accounted for by and increase in space itself. As f=ma isn't involved then it would be inaccurate to treat the galaxies appparent velocity based on inertia. Also the term explosion is also inappropriate except as a measure of rate of change. Explosions start at a point and radiate outward. This isn't the case with expansion. There is now origin point or direction involved. Expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location. (I mentioned this due to the thread title lol)

Well this being my first read of this thread my take on it is merely a rant... so far you've not answered a single question. I also didn't see a single explanation on the basis of your unified theory. Sounds to me like your a salesman pitching a yarn without any facts or disclosure of the relevant information. Not too impressive. Tell me do you even know what is involved in a unified field theory, can you even understand the older SO(5)*SO(3)*SO(2)*U(1) standard model? (Georgia-Glashow model). Do you even understand lie algebra or what a coupling constant is? Judging from what you wrote about little math involved the answer is "your tooting your horn over nothing" Perhaps you should Google the term grand unification and include pdf.

No not quite... you need to consider the volume of the entire universe to calculate the blackbody temperature of the universe, then calculate the number of fermions and leptons with their applicable degrees of freedom, chemical chain reactions and entropy. Then using the correct formulas you can calculate the temperature of the universe per a given volume, or Even calculate the number of photons etc at a given temperature. However you must remember this is over the volume of the universe... The average energy density of the universe will not be sufficient to slow light down as per a medium. We can model the universe as an ideal gas, quite accurately but one must remember the scale of the volume involved. These articles can provide greater detail 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/0409426An 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 chapter 3 of the last article has a particularly good section on the subject. Try this for thought, take everything in the universe today, now shrink it all down to a volume the size of a grapefruit... that grapefroot size universe is going to be extremely hot. Roughly 10^19 k hot... Here is a chronology with temperature of the universe in case your math skills cannot handle the above articles.. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe Weinbergs "First three minutes" is a excellent read. (Though based on an older particle physics model) SO(5) http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&rct=j&q=first%20three%20minutes%20weinberg%20pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjh34bs-f3JAhWzpIMKHQijANQQFggZMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mastercosmosbcn.es%2Fportal%2Fdown%2F1413367289.15e70b78f7e85f934729ae6d34ca6dff.pdf%2FThe%2BFirst%2BThree%2BMinutes%2B-%2Ba%2Bmodern%2Bview%2Bof%2Bthe%2Borigin%2Bof%2Bthe%2Buniverse%2B-%2BS.%2BWeinberg.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGyPlTEJMP0qbYSlmhYKv6XPcBG5w&sig2=Ka4_ryTXM_vyN75z9eKJnw

I did some digging and found a decent Parker radiation article for you http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.5616

I suggest you sit down and study the math. Virtual particles to explain inflation has been around since before Allen Guths false vacuum in the 80's there were well over 70+ inflation models that used variations of it. There is still models today that still try... So how can your possibly work or convince anyone without math ahead of the hundreds of attempts with the math???? Expansion doesn't have it's own energy. Expansion is due to the energy of the equations of state of other particles. Of which I showed how it works above. I also explained that those processes should decrease as the volume increases. If you borrow that energy it would not change the rate as the above process already involves annihilation and production of particles. Most particles have short lifetimes and pop in and out of existence. Including photons Here is the 70+ inflation models I mentioned. Encyclopaedia Inflationaris http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 The ones in that article are only the ones that are still considered viable. Hundreds came before and were found not to fit observation

It would take far too long to post all the math of LQC. Like I said you need to study the math instead of making blanket declarations. All VP models involves annihilation. They all borrow energy. Virtual particles cannot be created without the energy coming from somewhere

Sounds like your after cyclic universe if that's what your after look at LQC loop quantum gravity models. It uses your virtual particles as spin foam

Sorcerer VP production is still going it's an everyday occurance that never stops. You need to study the math involved. Even at the lowest level based on the ground point (minimal energy) there would be too much energy.

(PS I've lost count on the number of VP models I've studied.). None of them fully work and they included the math. The majority failed when they discovered the ground state was too high....

The problem is your proposed model has already been tried. Aka Parker radiation. Virtual particle production models ie the zero point energy universe etc based upon the quantum harmonic oscillator and Heisenburg uncertainty principle all suffer one flaw.that being the ground state. "Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy" https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy your not the first to think of this... The problem is the ground state leads to 120 orders of magnitude too much energy... your universe would fly apart. So unless you can show with math a lower ground state. You have no viable model. In fact without showing the math you have no model...

Ok this is going to be a bit tricky to explain. First off DE isn't required to cause expansion nor contraction. How the universe expands or contracts is due to how particles exert pressure influences via their equations of state. As well as it's overall gravitational influence. For example the first equation I posted shows the energy-density to pressure relationships. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] each particle species has kinetic energy in that they bounce off other particles this behavior causes pressure influences. For example relativistic radiation has a high energy density to pressure influence. Matter has negligible pressure influence. If for example you take nothing more than photons with no other contribution or particle species even with a finite number of photons the universe will expand... The rate of expansion however will slow down as more and more volume is created. Now the trick is different particle species has its own energy/density to pressure influence. Also the %of each species varies as the temperature drops. First you have the radiation dominent era followed by the matter dominant then the Lambda dominant. The above three equations of state is the average energy/mass density to pressure influences of all the particle species during a particular time period. You can look up the equations of state here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Now one might think that the rate of expansion today is greater than before (except inflation) but this is how you define "OVER WHAT VOLUME" For example per Mpc the rate of expansion is actually decreasing. Yet on the volume of the universe it is increasing. The reason for the latter is that there is far more Mpc adding up its own per Mpc contribution. dark energy for example is so small of an influence per Mpc it's nearly immeasurable. It's energy density is extremely close to zero. In joules it is roughly [latex]6.0*10^{-10} joules/m^3[/latex]. It's only over a vast volume that dark energy can be measured. In the case of inflation it may be due to the Higgs Boson dropping out of thermal equilibrium. Here is some papers that suggest both inflation and DE may be associated with the Higgs field. Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 How a universe expands or contracts involves nothing more than understanding the thermodynamic properties of the particles residing in a given volume. The only mystery is why is DE apparently constant as the volume changes and why is it so fine tuned to close to zero. You don't require virtual particle production to cause expansion. The pressure influence of the particle species merely need to exceed its self gravity. (ps if you look at the acceleration equation section I showed the math for the radiation dominant era). The only contributor needed is relativistic particles. In a finite number.....). The last section used the scalar field equation of state. Higgs boson I'd one example of a scalar field so the same formula can be used I didn't need to add dark energy to have an expanding universe in the above equations.... Lambda aka dark energy has an equation of state w=-1. Where relativistic radiation is w=1/3. Matter is w=0. I only included the dominant EOS average at the GUT epoch. Which is radiation dominant

One of my favourite intro websites. Very informative read

Sorcerer I think you need to look closely at what you mean by space expanding faster than light. The aspect your missing is that the above applies only over a huge seperation distance. Locally space expands at a mere 70 km/s/Mpc. It's only when you a separation distance above the Hubble Horizon does the rate appear to expand faster than light. That is an incredible distance. Particle pairs cannot hope to transverse that distance without encountering normal matter and annihilating. There was a type of radiation due to expansion you may be interested in. It's rather difficult to find the cosmological application papers on it. It's disappeared from mainstream physics in terms of cosmology. However it was one presented due to inflation/expansion. Parker radiation. Lets run an example Considering inflation's rapid expansion rate it will provide some details on how it may have worked. (Assuming the chaotic inflation model.)inflation involves Particle/antiparticle pairs to maintain conservation of energy rules in particle production. I'll place inflation close to the GUT epock. The inflaton forms in particle pairs [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] Let's use this relationship and describe the early universe prior to inflation then onto inflation. A radiation dominant universe will expand as the gravitational potential is insufficient to cause a collapse. The acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] where k is the curvature constant. Which during the GUT epock can be largely ignored. Via the equation of state [latex]p=w\rho c^2[/latex] [latex]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=-\frac{1}{2}H^2(1+3w)[/latex] for radiation w=-1/3 matter w=0 From this we can see a radiation dominant universe will expand. In fact it will accelerate when [latex]w<-1/3(p<-\rho^2/3)[/latex] When the volume sufficiently increases thereby reducing the temperature quarks, gluons and potentially the Higgs boson can drop out of thermal equilibrium. This process may potentially result in inflation as a phase change. The strong force undergoes symmetry breaking. The simplest version of inflation is via the inflaton which then dominates expansion. The inflaton is given by [latex]\varphi[/latex], with potential [latex]V\varphi[/latex] The pressure of the field is [latex]p(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] total energy by [latex]E(\varphi)=\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}}{\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] with equation of state. [latex]\frac{1/2\dot{\varphi}^2/\hbar c-V\varphi}{1/2\dot{\varphi}/\hbar c+V\varphi}[/latex] Even inflation itself includes vacuum hence Allen Guths original inflation model is called "False Vacuum". The false vacuum is a higher energy density region that tunnels through a potential barrier to a lower vacuum region "true vacuum" This equation describes how the universe expands ,it's more commonly called the deceleration equation. As opposed to acceleration equation. [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] note the energy density to pressure terms? That derives from the FLRW metric Just as an added perspective here is the Einstein field equation stress momentum tensor in the Minkowskii form. [latex]T^{\mu\nu}=(\rho+p)U^{\mu}U^{\nu}+p\eta^{\mu\nu}[/latex] Even GR uses pressure. I like to point out thermodynamic applications as it's essential to understanding the FLRW metric. One should note from the above that space expanding faster than light is not required

I will add another often overlooked piece of evidence for universe expansion that is often overlooked. An expanding universe is one that is also cooling down. This follows the ideal gas laws. A contracting universe would heat up. More often than not those new to cosmology are aware of the distance measurement aspects of expansion. Seldom are they aware that according to the ideal gas laws pV=nRt An increase in volume results in a decrease in temperature when the number of particles remain roughly constant at [latex]10^{90}[/latex] particles. We can see this via the temperature change in the measured blackbody change from the CMB to today. In point of detail the temperature varies inversely proportional to the scale factor "a" in the Friedman metric. Which correlates to the measured temperature. Another method of measuring expansion rates which involves a specialized redshift measurement is the late time Sachs-Wolfe effect. There is two forms. The early non integrated Sache-Wolfe effect and the late time integrated (after CMB Sache-Wolfe effect.) This helps us map changes in the average energy/mass density. (Which will effect temperature). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachs%E2%80%93Wolfe_effect The Sachs-Wolfe effect is also a key aspect in mapping anistropies in energy/density. Ie overdense regions of the CMB.

The peer review paper supplied by that link is rather lacking in detail. It's a theory without direct evidence. I would be hesitant on the idea at this point.

Not any from BB. They would be annihilated the only antimatter today is recently created. Even then incredibly short lived

Here is a simple experiment. Fill a tub with water, add some semi buoyant particles. Then take a blender to the center of the water and allow the impeller to spin for a while. Eventually you will get spiral waves as the water and particulates swirl The impeller represents the mass of the bulge including the BH. The BH contribution isnt due to the spin of the BH, but rather nearby stars and dust orbitting the BH inducing drag radially outward.

Supermassive blackholes are normally found at the center of spiral galaxies and probably do assist in the spiral arm formation by assisting in inducing rotation of the galaxies density wave. However not all galaxies have supermassive blackholes. These tend to not be spiral galaxies.