Mordred

In a way I am, replace the word kinetic energy with momentum for objects moving in a particular direction. Here is why this is important take an object moving at constant velocity in one direction. When that object changes direction and maintains the same velocity/speed it still has the same kinetic energy. However it doesn't have the same momentum. Now think of frame dragging of a rotating BH. Which term applies more accurately kinetic energy or momentum? The term the object at rest decides to move in order to produce kinetic energy. Makes no sense. The object itself doesn't make choices, it merely interacts with other influences. You can describe that influence as space time curvature, tidal force of simply force of gravity. Any of these three ways of explaining it is acceptable. Either way an influence affects the object. Not the object decided to produce kinetic energy. Though an increase in velocity does increase its kinetic energy. I think the problem your having is thinking curvature is from one influence. It's isn't. Curvature involves energy, pressure, flux, shear momentum. think of energy and momentum as four components of the same thing. You have energy mass is just a form of energy. (bit oversimplified), then you have momentum, pressure, flux and shear. The stress energy tensor describes the motion of all individual paeticles. Not volume itself. this article shows the hydrodynamic relations involved of a perfect fluid(ideal gas) with curvature http://mathreview.uwaterloo.ca/archive/voli/2/olsthoorn.pdf Unfortunately there's no simple way to properly explain GR. The stress energy tensor itself leads to 10 differential equations. As the stress energy tensor defines how space time curves....

They probably meant per the same volume. Ie density increase. Happens sometimes lol. One reason why mathematics is better to describe relation changes than descrptives.

Yes this is correct.

That's your line not mine. That's thy the " " marks This is wrong specifically the last line. " specifically the increasing amount of energy Read Your post in red again. Here is what you wrote. " (But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Plancks time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past). My reply is the total energy of the observable universe Doesn't increase. You evidently mistyped. The density does increase but that wasn't what you typed in the first place. I still do not understand how you can believe kinetic energy explains gravity. That's why I'm asking you to look at how kinetic energy is defined. In particular look at the difference between kinetic and momentum... One is scalar ( no direction) One is a vector ( scalar+direction) Then think of the stress energy- momentum tensor. ( which in GR defines what causes space to curve)

I honestly have to wonder if you understand what the term Kinetic energy means in Physics... " The energy possessed by a body because of its motion, equal to one half the mass of the body times the square of its speed. kinetic energy in Science Expand. kinetic energy. (kə-nět'ĭk) The energy possessed by a system or object as a result of its motion." [latex] ke=\frac{1}{2}mv^2[/latex] It is a scalar measurement (has no direction) momentum is a vector quantity magnitude plus direction. So I really don't see how you can use kinetic energy in replacement of attraction of two mass objects which are at rest...? You keep trying to invoke your personal model into what your reading. Not a very good idea. Your line " if they dont touch theres no tidal effect and masses stay completely independent from one another for example: galaxies).". Then why are they gravitationally bound and shown to follow the same laws as other bodies? Ie Andromeda is definetely gravitationally bound with the Milky way. The motions of individual galaxies within large scale structures are predictable via the laws of gravity. "But since temperature is the result of density, this increase of temperature while going back in time is the result of a backward trip through expansion of the universe which has been diluting energy since the beginning of Plancks time. This explains the increasing amount of energy available for particles as we proceed in the past)." This is wrong specifically the last line. " specifically the increasing amount of energy" There is no increase or decrease in total energy of the observable universe Conservation of energy laws apply. The change in temperature is due to change in volume, but the total energy is constant. " energy cannot be created or destroyed only change from one state to another ie energy to matter or different particles."

So little rest mass. Or in modern terms invariant mass. It has enormous inertial mass old term is relativistic mass. Invariant mass is mass that is the same to all observers ie the particle is at rest. E=mc^2 isn't the full formula as it doesn't include the momentum p. [latex] E^2=pc^2+(m_oc)^2[/latex] Mass of a particle is defined by its invariant mass as it's inertial mass can change. Observer effects can alter how one measures inertial mass.

Well if your concern is mass and how GR describes it you might consider how many tests have been performed. Here is a lengthy article covering tests of GR. Bignose posted this in another thread. Figured you should read it as well. http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.7377 Also keep in mind particle accelerators test mass gain due to inertia everyday. As the particles approach c greater amounts of energy is required to accelerate them as the particles acquire inertial mass. Muon lifetime is extremely short lived. As they hit our atmosphere they shouldn't live long enough to arrive at the Earths surface. However due to time dilation they do. Just a couple of examples the arxiv article has plenty more

I wouldn't worry too much, take for example the FLRW metric itself. The equation has evolved since 1919. The later form included DM and the cosmological constant. It also uses commoving distance instead of conformal distance. If you buy textbooks older than 1990 you may come across the older metric. Equations can and do evolve as new research presents itself. Until the equation no longer fits evidence. Then it's replaced.

No prob, QFT can be broken down further. QED electromagnetic. Quantum chromodynamics, strong force Quantum flavour dynamics weak force Quantum geometrodynamics gravity. One technique I use when googling good papers add pdf at the end. You tend to hit better articles. Less pop media. Also my technique when studying new material is stop when you hit a section you don't understand. Look for the key words or metrics then Google those metrics or terms. Say for example Klien Gordon equation. Google Klien Gordon equation pdf.

I do currently have a good LQC article immediately handy. It's a good alternative to LCDM. Equally a good observation to modelling. http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.4598"Introduction to Loop Quantum Cosmology by Abhay Ashtekar Been awhile since I last read it though a couple on QFT http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCQQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.damtp.cam.ac.uk%2Fuser%2Ftong%2Fqft%2Fqft.pdf&rct=j&q=introductory%20to%20Quantum%20field%20theory.&ei=tbOeVeKVN8io-QG1s5OYBQ&usg=AFQjCNHHFlwG-paMpV6erDOOQglsYtw9pw&sig2=d86N3fliPeeZmbOC5KRyXg http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0510040

Might be an idea to understand what the BB model truly states before passing judgement. Your post is full of pop media misconceptions. Here is a good collection of articles specifically on those misconceptions. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446:"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808:"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf:"Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966"why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

Tensors are incredibly handy in surprisingly enough simplifying complex relations. Remember mathematics is a tool. The universe doesn't care how we measure it. However physics does lol. I'll dig up some QFT articles for you. I would still recommend looking at how the FLRW metric adapts the classical ideal gas laws. The same techniques will be used in other fields. Be forewarned though I personally understand QFT better than QM. Which is kind of funny.

Can one derive a quantum descriptive. Absolutely however they are already done. It's not obvious though as they are part of the energy tensor. Ie electromagnetic stress energy tensor. Or in the case of Cosmology stress energy momentum tensor and FLRW metric. The laws were currently dealing with is classical formulation. Everyday applications in chemistery etc. Kinetic energy and potential energy are handy to fully understand. They have carefully designed applications. The original false vacuum model involves kinetic energy it's just termed a pressure relation vacuum. A higher vaccuum region (higher energy state) false vaccuum tunnels to a lower.vacuum energy state true vacuum. Just one example Some people learn cosmology differently. Not necessarily wrong. Some prefer using LQC, or QFT they prefer describing particles in terms of wave functions or particle interactions as fields. Others prefer particle descriptives. You might find your personal way of thinking is suitable to QFT. However the math takes some getting used to. Same for QM style mathematics.

Change in amplitude is a change in frequency which will change the energy of each particle not the number of particles. You have to remember were dealing with classical particles as well. The gas laws must apply universally to complex compounds as well as single particles. So trying to change it to say a quantum description doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also gas laws are taught in school, so it's handy to keep simpler decriptives. Also keep in mind the article I posted to you is basic statistical mechanics. Full length articles and books average 300 to 1000 pages long. I could post you a copy if you like but be forewarned the sheer volume of math will make anyone's head swim. Movement is already defined by temperature via average kinetic energy. Remember the gas laws are an averaging system. It doesn't try to predict all the dynamics of individual particles. It describes the averaged influence. Think of it this way how does one change the number of NaCl particles? In this case you need to literally add or subtract the quantity yourself. Quanta of particles won't apply in this case. Also were now dealing with atomic mass. It's best for now to study the current definitions and methodology rather than trying to reinvent the wheel as they say. One has to consider what a change in a fundamental model will affect universally over a broad spectrum of applications. Ideal gas laws are also of great importance in chemistry as well as physics. That will also explain why you see chemistery terms used, ie number of moles.

I would recommend just using volume instead of space. Volume is automatically 3d. Just a side note just reads easier as your defining the dimensions. Have a good sleep, myself I'm enjoying a few drinks lol(Units are extremely important in physics)

Yes it does I must have misread somewhere. My apologies however you don't need the portion seemed increased. Increase of pressure also increases temperature. Temperature is an increase in average kinetic energy. Key note average. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Temperature

Your point under number two is inacurrate. Pressure seems to give you trouble. It's inaccurate as you can't increase pressure without increasing the number of collisions or force of each collision. Other than that good thus far You just need to look at how units are defined. However you are catching on

Mole. The Mole A mole (abbreviated mol) of a pure substance is a mass of the material in grams that is numerically equal to the molecular mass in atomic mass units (amu). A mole of any material will contain Avogadro's number of molecules. For example, carbon has an atomic mass of exactly 12.0 atomic mass units http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

This last part makes no sense. Pressure is force per unit volume. In terms of particles it's the averaging of the force of particle to particle collisions per unit volume. Or in the first articles mannerisms collisions on the container walls (could just be the wording in the quoted parts, translation thingy lol) Say for example you have a hypothetical particle that never interacts with other particles including itself. This particle never has collisions. So it can never deliver any force, a multi particle collection of this particles pressure influence will always be zero. Of course this particle doesn't exist ( lol if it did it would be impossible to contain or detect it. Too sci fi but it's a hypothetical example to show the principle of pressure) If you increase the number of moles of particles you increase its density and the number of collisions. If the number of collisions is constant heavier particles will deliver more force per collision. If you increase the Temperature the particles gain kinetic energy so the number of collisions also increases. If you increase the volume the number of collisions decreases. Here lets use this This law has the following important consequences: If temperature and pressure are kept constant, then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas. If the temperature and volume remain constant, then the pressure of the gas changes is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas present. If the number of gas molecules and the temperature remain constant, then the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume. If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws http://www.indiana.edu/~geog109/topics/10_Forces&Winds/GasPressWeb/PressGasLaws.html

A couple of points you missed. Pressure is a measure of force per unit volume. If you increase the space you decrease the pressure and temperature. They are talking the mass of the individual particles not number of particles. More massive particles require greater force to move than lighter particles. F=ma applies. Less massive particles at a given pressure will gain greater momentum at a given pressure than massive particles. One thing to be careful of is thermodynamic state. Certain properties in thermaldynamic systems are state functions. Ie entropy and enthalpy. ( The last is more a side note. When studying the ideal gas laws state functions can trip you up) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_function Also remember particles can gain or lose inertial mass. We're not dealing with rest mass.

Could you post which remarks, I'm currently using mobile version being near the North pole catching occassional signals. Telus tower coverage up here is poor lol.

Not quite how cosmology determined universe geometry involves pressure yes. The metric of flat geometry is determined by the critical density formula. The pressure term comes into play mainly in expansion rates. If the universe actual density equals the calculated critical density the universe is flat. Pressure comes into play as energy density has a pressure relation via the equations of state. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The critical density formula calculation involves both gravity and pressure. Later on I'll post how it's derived. I'll have to show the stress tensor relations as part of it.

( key note the equations of state for a particular era is an average of particle contributors with their degrees of freedom) ie in the radiation dominant era. The main contributors is photons and neutrinos. ( matter is negligible in influence during this era) (Hint if you have questions on the first article, particularly on enthalpy and entropy post the question in the classical forum. Studiot love's answering these) By the way +1 for showing a strong interest in studying I may pick up a copy Somehow 60+ various physics textbooks isn't enough lol

Well sometimes the simpler the better leaves out critical details. However we can cover pressure, entropy, energy/mass density etc using statistical mechanics and the FLRW metric and save the stress energy tensor for later on. After thinking about it the mannerism to learn this is better suited to the right sequence of articles specifically covering the ideal gas laws. When you read these keep in mind all particles with momentum can exert pressure. So for the first article they will mention container walls. Obviously the universe doesn't have container walls. The pressure is a measure of interparticle interactions with each other. In other words the container wall is the particles in the same region. Now as to why relativistic radiation exerts pressure but not matter. The reason is quite simple. Relativistic radiation has greater momentum. Go through the first article. Get familiar with Pv=nRT. The second article will take you from this into the FLRW metric. Including the little steps I may miss. http://vallance.chem.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/PropertiesOfGasesLectureNotes.pdf http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/SPCnotes.pdf Keep in mind ideal gas laws is a method of averaging complex multiparticle systems to good approximation. You'll note the last article also covers universe geometry.

Not quite. The moderators look for reliable supporting sources. Videos or opinions don't count as such.