Mordred

No its not needed in all models, one example Higgs inflation. Which is simply put due to the Higgs metastability. Ie it changes potential of influence at high temperature (extremely roughly speaking)Now to explain the reasoning behind wiki's article. Let's look at Allen Guths "false vacuum" the original inflation model. In this model you have two vacuum states. False vacuum and true vacuum. False vacuum being the higher energy state. True vacuum being the Lower energy state. A high vacuum state (false vacuum will quantum vacuum to the Lower energy state(true vacuum). The amount of energy transferred determines the rate of inflation. The vast majority of inflation models use this technique, (but not all of them) There is a problem though, once this mechanism starts its extremely difficult to stop. Google "runaway inflation". Guth, Steinhardt etc tried solving runaway inflation by introducing slow roll mechanism. This leads to eternal inflation, chaotic eternal inflation, slow roll approximation, natural inflation, hill inflation etc etc etc . All these models were developed to solve runaway inflation. The inflaton is involved in these models. Some models use the curvaton, others have different virtual particles. This is just personal opinion but my vote goes to Higgs. The beauty here is the Higgs already has a natural Mexican hat potential (metastability). Does not require exotic particles either real or virtual. Not does it require anisotropy regions and quantum tunnelling. (If you think about false vacuum higher to lower energy density regions the anisotropy regions will end up balanced)

How would you measure or define anything without space(volume) ? Time is simply a measure of change or duration. How one measures it doesn't define time. As the day the universe doesn't Care how we measure it. (Key note to measure time you must have SOMETHING to measure ie particles either individual or as a body.)

You can't fully trust wiki. As mentioned its not written by professional scientists. Use the material I provided. (Key note I'm not asking you to favor any particular model, as 70+ models are equally viable) however Planck data strongly supports the single scalar models, if shown as most favourable with further research, narrows the models to less than 10 out of the first link.

Take a small volume, suddenly increase that small volume 60+ efolds in less than one second. This causes supercoolng, then have a slow roll phase which causes a reheating phase. ( CMB is caused by this reheating) Thermal equilibrium and the start of nucleosythesis. Any small anisotropies will be washed out. Particularly due to the sudden volume increase, temperature cooling then reheating. Encyclopaedia Inflationaris http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 I studied Muckanovs textbook, his inflation model is specifically a multi scalar inflation models. Instead of one mechanism for inflation, his involves two permutations, one due to bosons the other fermions. Some models are single scalar, ie chaotic eternal inflation. Scott Dodelson has similar ideas to Muckanov. Both are equally viable, but so is Higgs inflation. Remember there is well over 70+ viable inflation models. They are listed and studied in the above link. There is some conjecture that some anisotropy will show up in the BAO baryon accoustic oscillations of the CMB. That is what your last post is specifically referring to once you study the math itself. Not the pop media explanations. The last 4 years a huge amount of research is supportive of Higgs inflation. Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 a colleque of mine is currently studying inflation. His research is extremely recent. You will easily see the involvement in the Baryon accoustic oscillations, as a possible determinant of what inflation models best suits the evidence. Without directly supporting a particular model.... http://arxiv.org/find/all/1/all:+AND+Brian+Powell/0/1/0/all/0/1 ( In previous conversions with Brian he's taught me far more about inflation than the majority of the textbooks and articles I've studied,) A couple of guides though older models on nucleosynthesis and inflation. 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 The first two are overviews. The third is a full textbook, the last is based on Muchanov and Dodelson. Ie the metrics are the same as their textbooks.

Actually prior to inflation it could be anistrophic or isotropic. Inflation essentially washed out any aninstophies. There is afaik no observable data supporting one over the other as there is still 70+ viable inflation models.

Another key detail is that the invariance of light is extremely well tested. Your theory isn't. Also relativity is compatible with SO(1.3) group representation. This includes the stress energy and curvature tensor. I saw no comparison to the symmetry that GR has as an orthogonal group with the math you've thus posted.

Regardless of whether you wish to use the wave or particle form. QM also applies the invariance of light. This includes Schrodinger, you need to show this mathematically as being wrong Did I miss your wave function metrics in the math you have posted? All I see above is differential vectors. In what appears to be in the form of a test particle. Mind you it would help to use latex.

Your getting false Intel. First ask yourself a key question. Vector of what? A vector is simply a measurement that has a scalar value and a direction. For example velocity is a vector. It is a measure of speed with a direction. Now take temperature, it is a scalar quantity just like speed is. One other detail the quantum world uses relativity as well. The problem between the two has to do with quantifying gravity which is the weakest of the four forces at the quantum (particle) level.

Point 5 meaningless Point 6 and 7 are also meaningless as space is volume.

point 1 Visible invisible space is meaningless. Space is volume, gravity operates on the particles/fields that reside in space. Point 2 gravity is attraction only not repulsive. Point 3 space is not a material that can be stretched. Those terms are mathematical analogies for those that cannot understand the mathematics. Point 4 already pointed out the flaw in point 2.

Yeah I've been digging for \phi^3 specific literature. Keep finding \phi^4.

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.physics.indiana.edu/~dermisek/QFT_09/qft-II-1-4p.pdf&sa=U&ei=O_dwVa3uDpHEogSEr4CwDQ&ved=0CBEQFjAB&sig2=1pnEbdsXXdJ2Mzsdh1sGkw&usg=AFQjCNHv7GFr52tusiM5NDgJH7bsH2LqOg This article covers phi^3 with one path

After some digging I found a thesis paper on the subject. Be forewarned it's heavy on the QM regime mathematics. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CDkQFjAIOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifw-dresden.de%2Fuserfiles%2Fgroups%2Fitf_folder%2FHelmut_Eschrig%2Fp.pdf&rct=j&q=quasi%20particles%20principles%20pdf&ei=CtxvVejbNsjRoATxwoOgBA&usg=AFQjCNEqTemavUPC5an-Ua21kEf-BYoJBA&sig2=te8Y1Skdr5x2DeGVXUqb7Q However this is probably more appropriate as it deals with wave functions extensively.

Great except science has this thing called "Dont trust your senses. Apply measurements. Then apply mathematics to show how those measurements can be predicted.

Studiot likes to learn just as anyone else does. Ajb is one of our best mathematicians.

What defines a solid other than density? Well one way to define it is via the dominance of the electromagnetic force. In a solid the electromagnetic force and how it interacts with an electron far exceeds that of the Higgs field. To the point where the Higgs field would have negligible influence upon an electron, compared to the electromagnetic force. This would be true even in waveform. Now how is mass defined? Mass is resistance to inertia. So in a solid the major influence of mass on an electron is the binding energy(confinement) of the electromagnetic force. Inside a proton the majority of the binding energy upon quarks is the strong force. So the majority of its mass is due to the strong force. In the latter case only 1% the mass of the proton is due to the Higgs field. Now how is a particle categorized? Via its properties. Spin, charge, rest mass, and interactions ie color and flavor etc. So if any of these properties change you have a different particle. In the case of quasi particles they do not exist without the specified interactions. An electron however can exist on its own. Hence its classified as a real particle. The electron can even exist without a Higgs field. Can all particles be considered as quasi particles. Possibly but as quasi particles is a combination of particle and interaction you would significantly need to increase the number of particles. Each different combination would require a different name. Sounds like Occams razor favors the SM model to me. (By the way this thread is refreshing, not often you get good solid debates/conversations going on forums) usually one pushes his personal ideas ahead of established models and theories without learning why the standard models and theories work and why they work +1 Thus far your questions have been well thought out.

Here is something to consider. Take a telescope pick a star, now you have the problem. How far away is that star. So to determine that one technique is redshift. However for redshift you need an original frequency. So you look at known elements. Hydrogen spectral lines are handy. Already you have to use calculated values. The cosmological redshift formula. One cannot use visual data to measure the universe directly. You always have to find ways to calculate and determine distance.

You have a point however it breaks down to confinement. In the case under discussion are discussing the Crystal lattice structure of solids. Free space has (gas) has far greater degrees of freedom. Essentially their movement is not confined. If you look under the wiki page you linked they specify solids to free space. Polarons emerge in solids not free space. Although both can be modelled under the ideal gas laws, the degrees of freedom of particles and mean free path of particles is far more restrictive in solids. In the case of the Higgs field the standard metrics is a nonzero scalar vacuum. We certainly cannot think of a solid as a vacuum. Quasi particles are specifically a specified (particle + interaction). Take a closer look at the descriptions of each quasi particle type on the list I provided.

Didn't I also state you account for age? I did mention the scale factor and post the distance formula in 4d. All datasets must account for observer influences. This includes time "You calculate the proper distance between two or more measurement points. Any time you take any measurements you must account for observer influences. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex]" This was posted in a previous post this thread.

Why do I think your still misunderstanding? The cosmological principle has nothing to do with how the universe evolves over time. It is specifically describing the distribution of thermodynamic processes and distribution of matter at specific moments in time. We can directly measure today's temperature. It's the temperature of our local group. We can also confirm the universe expands by taking measurements further and further back in time. Just as we can measure the change in distance measurements and redshift.

Neither is correct, both are overusing the balloon analogy. Whose only sole purpose is to provide a geometric example of a homogeneous and isotropic separation distance between measuring points. In the balloon analogy one must not think in terms of edge, outside or inside the balloon. The analogy is only accurate to describe the dots drawn on the balloon, and how they expand from one dot to another. The universe itself has no known size or edge. It may be finite or infinite. We simply do not know which. Here is a handy site that lists some of the common misconceptions of the balloon analogy. 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 I included the second article as it too discusses the balloon analogy in good detail

You need to be careful here, quasi particles are emergent phenomenon. The polariton and polaron, the first being bosonic, the latter being fermionic. Are not considered real particles. They are I guess you could say bookkeeping descriptives of the interaction influence the Crystal lattice has upon photons and electrons travelling through solids. The polariton and polaron are also strictly involved in electromagnetic interactions. Not all particles will interact with the polariton and polaron. For that matter not all particles interact with the Higgs field. In the case of the polaron it is a quasi particle that exhibits all the same characteristics of am electron but with a different mass. This is only when travelling through solids. The quasi particle state is a collection of complicated interactions with the electron or photon. In free space the electron gains its mass via the Higgs field interactions. One handy note on quasi particles. By the following definition. "an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle." So what this means is that quasi particles exhibit particle like characteristics due to interactions but they themselves are not particles. Ie particles in free space. This site has a handy analogy of quasi particles. (Soap bubble) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486549/quasiparticle Here is a handy list of quasi particles. Though probably not a complete list. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

Not really that negligable. Try to understand a key detail. If you look further and further away, your naturally looking further back in time. In this context one can state there is a preferred direction but this isn't entirely accurate. The further you look back in time the denser the universe will appear. This isn't what the Cosmological Principle is really stating. One way to think of it is, " At any specific moment in time, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic." This includes key dynamics such as those involved in thermodynamic processes, or the ideal gas laws. Pressure, temperature, energy density and expansion. The CMB is one such moment. However any point in time will have a uniform density throughout the universe. Today that critical density is roughly 10^29 grams/cubic metre with average blackbody temperature of 2.73 Kelvin. Using the equations of the FLRW metric one can use density as our clock. Fundamentally cosmic time does just that.

Lol oops, evidently I hadn't completely woken up lol

A good discussion on manifolds is done by Sean Carroll. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll2.html