Mordred

There is some models that support the slow roll as being associated with our current expansion. From what I gather from some articles I've looked over in the past its certainly not implausible. My personal feelings however is in the Higgs mexican hat potential mechanism being responsible for both inflation and expansion. However it's still plausible for the inflaton slow roll to still be gradually declining. There is still 70+ viable to observable evidence inflation models. Planck data supports the single scalar models, which may narrow that list down to 7 viable. However multiscalar models aren't ruled out just yet. (Just a side note. Pop media articles typically state that Higgs inflation requires supersymnetric particles.) This isn't exactly true, SO(10) MSSM(minimal super symmetric model) is more commonly associated with the seesaw mechanism, however there is a little known and hard to find good papers on SO(10) MSM (minimal standard model) model that also includes the seesaw mechanism. Both models can support inflation and expansion.) Primarily due to both includes the standard model Higgs.

I looked at the referenced paper and quite frankly it made zero sense. His metrics appears based on a toy universe with K=+1 open infinite universe with positive curvature. Where our universe is k=0. Flat. His age of the universe is way higher than our own. That was just at a quick glance, seems sketchy to my reading The k=+1 would make sense for a false vacuum state according to the FLRW metric . However our state is k=0 or extremely close to flat. Ah I see what the discrepancy is the paper was released prior to WMAP. It's out of date. Prior to WMAP the curvature constant was still highly debatable

We may or may not be in a false vacuum as opposed to the true vacuum. The model you want to look at is De-Sitter/anti-De-Sitter model We may or may not be in a false vacuum as opposed to the true vacuum. The model you want to look at is De-Sitter/anti-De-Sitter model. The original false vacuum inflation model is a quantum tunnelling process In the false vacuum model inflation occurs due to false vacuum tunneling to the true vacuum. There is later inflation models such as chaotic eternal inflation, and the slow roll approximation that are still valid and uses the same process. So I'm not sure where this wiki article is getting its reference from. Can you link the particular page please.

GEM itself is testable, your informatons isn't. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitoelectromagnetism there is a section on various tests Here is one paper http://astroreview.com/issue/2012/article/the-gem-theory-of-the-unification-of-gravitation-and-electro-magnetism The problem with your informaton is it has zero measurable properties. No energy, momentum etc.

At one time I attempted to model radiation emitting from galaxies. Gamma rays,photons etc as the source of dark energy. Sounded plausible at the time. Two factors killed that idea mathematically. 1) speed of radiation c being the limit. 2) maintaining a homogeneous and isotropic distribution. (Uniform distribution, with no preferred location or direction) The problem came when one realizes this is similar to solar thermodynamic flows. Dark energy is extremely homogeneous and isotropic. It's also extremely close to zero. Regardless of where you measure it. It Is overpowered by local gravity, so expansion does not occur in gravitational bound clusters. If dark energy was a local effect radiating from sources such galaxies or Bkackholes the strength would by nature be stronger the closer to the source you get. As Pv=nRT (ideal gas laws) the localized interaction rates would be higher thus so would the temperature. variations in temperature regions creates thermodynamic flows. Nothing like the distribution of dark energy. The only way to maintain the uniformity of the cosmological constant every volume of space, must undergo a similar process that causes a negative vacuum. The rates must be uniform. What that process is, is still unknown. However it's distribution uniformity is well studied. roughly [latex]6.0*10^-10 joules/m^3[/latex] Or if you prefer [latex]7*10^-29 grams/m^3[/latex] (As a side note, if you want a good model of adiabatic flows. Look at the baryon accoustic oscillations (BAO) of the CMB.) It's process sources are different but the distribution patterns would be similar). Unfortunately DE doesn't match that type of pattern (Lol at the time I tried my model I didn't know how thoroughly baryon interactions were already mapped)

I don't particularly have a problem with GEM, it does have several compatible stress tensor, and includes the Levi-Cevitti connection. There are some variants that include Lorentz boosts. If the Op showed these it would have been helpful. As is I didn't see enough in his papers to reflect how he's relating GEM to his informatons. This is where I've been trying to encourage better clarity. Though GEM isn't an area I studied in great detail from what I've read on the subject is intriguing. Something explaining how informatons in these metrics would be what I would look for when I see GEM being referenced. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0311030

We are supplying serious answers why it doesn't make sense. 1) a field regardless of type must have energy whether that energy is scalar or vectoral to influence a particle or body in motion. 2) a gravitational field cannot directly influence a massless particle, therefore cannot change its acceleration. Your model is strictly Euclidean. GEM Includes the metric equivalence to the Eistein field equations, where your model specifically does not.(your model being Newtonian, hence I'm asking questions based in the Newtonian limits) 3) there is no possible way to measure or detect informatons, as they have zero particle properties, or even field like properties. No energy, momentum, charge etc. Sounds like solid reasons why your model doesn't make sense. I was hoping this would have hinted at the problem [latex]m=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2}{c^2}}}[/latex] Photons has zero rest mass so [latex]m_o=0[/latex] Zero decided by any number =zero Therefore m=0. what I wanted you to show is the connection to the correct momentum, and how gravity is influenced by energy, and vice versa. Relativistic mass is an old term, you may want to replace it with inertial mass. Your paper included the relativistic momentum equation, but you didn't correlate the details on how energy itself causes and can be influenced by gravity. This is usually done by the stress energy tensor. Your replies above indicated you missed that connection in your post containing this reply. "We consider - relative to an inertial reference frame O - a photon that is moving in the equatorial plane of a rotating massive spherical body. This body is the source of a gravitational field The g-field points to the center of the body, the g-induction is perpendicular to the plane and points into the plane. To become blind for the influence of the gravitational field , the photon will accelerate relative...." your Bilage 2.1 pdf paper did not include a proper solution. By the way the main reason I pointed this out is that mass is in the modern viewpoint taken to mean the invariant or rest mass. The relativistic momentum equation you have is derived from the total energy. [latex]e=\sqrt{p^2c^2+m_o^2c^4}[/latex] Total energy should not be thought of a variable mass (relativistic mass) You should show how the last formula connects to gravitational redshift. Anyways you will still need the stress energy tensor and null geodesics.(that was the hint to look deeper into the Maxwell equations and the electromagnetic stress tensor) After all the stress energy momentum tensor is what shows how energy is influenced by gravity, not the Newtonian formulas. Particularly since your not showing the Lorentz factors, or using space time. (Even though some of your equations include the lorentz factor) you ignore the length contraction and time dilation) So your only covering HALF the transformation from rest frame to the inertial frame for example the Four momentum tensor (4 vectors) [latex]p^{\mu}=(\frac{e}{c},p_x,p_y,p_z)[/latex] Where [latex]p^0=\frac{e}{c}[/latex] is your time vector. (Travelling through time) The other three components are travelling through space. This is what you don't show an equivalence for...... Remember our job is to punch holes into your theorem. It's your job to fill them.

Informatons have no energy or momentum it cannot accelerate anything. It takes energy to cause a change in acceleration. Gravity itself cannot accelerate photons, gravity doesn't interact with photons photons has no mass for gravity to interact with. It is the curvature of the null geodesic, that causes the change in direction. You seem to be giving your informatons magical abilities, according to your model they have no energy or momentum, yet they can cause an influence that even gravity cannot influence. How is that suppose to make sense?

This still doesn't answer how the force of gravity can affect massless particles either. I'm still waiting for that answer (without using null geodesics)

Ok lets use electrons and any atom. You have 4 quantum numbers, Principle quantum number=n Azimuthal quantum number=L Magnetic quantum number=[latex]m_l[/latex] Spin quantum number.[latex]m_s[/latex]. The principle quantum number is covered here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principal_quantum_number Azimuthal here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azimuthal_quantum_number Magnetic http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_quantum_number Spin here http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_quantum_number bosons have integer spins,1,2,3 etc Fermions have 1/2 integar spins. [latex]n+\frac{1}{2}[/latex] n is an integer value. The Pauli exclusion applies only to fermions (electrons, protons neutrons etc.) Sample bosons is the photon, W and Z boson,mesons etc. "The Pauli exclusion principle is the quantum mechanical principle that says that two identical fermions (particles with half-integer spin) cannot occupy the same quantum state simultaneously. In the case of electrons, it can be stated as follows: it is impossible for two electrons of a poly-electron atom to have the same values of the four quantum numbers (n, ℓ, mℓ and ms)" http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli_exclusion_principle Here is an article with some practice exercises. http://en.m.wikibooks.org/wiki/High_School_Chemistry/Pauli_Exclusion_Principle

It's the seesaw mechanism involvement. Think of it as a Mexican hat potential. At higher temperatures its yukawa couplings varies. http://www.quantumfieldtheory.info/TheSeesawMechanism.htm http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seesaw_mechanism http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/9911364 It's the seesaw mechanism involvement. Think of it as a Mexican hat potential. At higher temperatures its yukawa couplings varies. The mixing is between left hand and right hand neutrinos, and the yukawa couplings. As the mass on one side increases the other side decreases.

It also doesn't match how the Four forces interact. You have four forces, electromagnetic , weak,strong and gravity. Not all particles interact with every force. Examples are the gauge bosons, (mediators of the forces), neutrinos, dark matter. Photons only interact with the electromagnetic force. W and Z bosons with the weak force, gluons with the strong force. The neutrino doesn't interact with the electromagnetic force nor with the strong force. So in the case of photons, whose only interaction is the electromagnetic force. Why would it notice an acceleration due to the force of gravity.? It can't. The force of gravity cannot influence directly the path of the photon. It doesn't interact with gravity. The photon path curves due to space time curvature, it follows the null geodesic. However it is not directly influenced by the force of gravity. This is where your analysis is in error. The photon wouldn't be influenced by a [latex]a=E_g[/latex]. [latex]f_g[/latex] has no influence upon photons because photons have no mass to influence. Definition of gravity. the force that attracts a body toward the center of the earth, or toward any other physical body having mass. The photon has no mass. So gravity does not affect it. So it cannot experience an acceleration due to the force of gravity. Nor can it be influenced by your informaton, by your own admission the g informaton has no energy. It takes energy to cause a force. Your g informaton field would have zero energy density. So this means it's intensity is also zero. It would have zero energy-density.

(Then again my interest has been in the thermodynamic aspects of particle physics and cosmology.) The two are highly interconnected. This includes the Einstein field equations. No problem, please study virial theorem and the NFW profile in detailThe key terms on simplifying complex interactions is via ideal gas law approximations. energy/ mass density is a valuable tool As a side note it is possible to describe a rock as an ideal gas. Follows the same approximation rules. here is a good article, thermodynamics is a major study, however vital in Cosmology applications. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=4&ved=0CCEQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.physics.uoguelph.ca%2Fpoisson%2Fresearch%2Fspi.pdf&rct=j&q=ideal%20gas%20law%20of%20solids%20pdf&ei=sVQOVdbVOsyyggSHpYOIBw&usg=AFQjCNFnizb_WfYgcrz21lUiy85HUaJnDA&sig2=eyc4ZRHF-lFKY4zKgC3BTg Unfortunately finding non copy righted literature, limits my coverage. As I have bought numerous textbooks, The second link follows "Modern Cosmology" by Dodelson 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 Yes good textbooks are often 500+ pages, complex subject matter, I've lost count on number of pages, too long to remember ago.

No problem mate, your definetely dedicated. Not a bad thing, I went through similar learning stages, it's good to question. Just keep in mind the amount of research and minds that go into a theorem. If a theory survives a mere decade, with all the counter arguments, it might just be plausible. Lol back when I first started studying cosmology in the late 80's dark energy and dark matter was highly contested. WMAP clinched a lot of the debate. I've been studying since, gives me an advantage. So I can understand someone just stepping into the subject. without knowing the history of debates (Sorry if I sound gruff at times, it gets frustrating trying to teach what I learned at times,easy to forget ppl are just started in a complex field of study)

On a plus note, your Euclidean descriptives were well done on the graphs, there were parts in your article that I liked the format. I wish you spent more time on the Maxwell equation and notations. Might be something to consider adding. Keep in mind we will still keep poking holes into your theorem. All part of science. If you think I'm critical on your theorem I spent three years poking holes into my own that I found I couldn't fill (I tried solving dark energy via thermodynamic dispersion, couldn't keep it homogeneous and isotropic dang speed of light limit)

Ah universe geometry, so many misconceptions in regards to what is universe geometry. In point it is a density relation between the universes actual density and the critical density. It's not it's actual shape as per se. The relationship above determines whether the universe continously expands or contracts. This is regardless if it is finite or infinite. If it's finite and contracts you can have the big bounce. Keep in mind this is before dark energy was added. Anyways that's the side note. Here is an article covering the actual vs critical density relations in terms of geometry. (I tried keeping it as simple as possible and still show the FLRW metric. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 FLRW metric (distance on each geometry) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/

Lol good article, love the last line in particular.

You just don't get it do you? You cannot transport mass, energy momentum without particle interactions. Your g-informatons are according to you NOT particles. information is not an entity unto itself. In order to have information you must have SOMETHING to measure. Gravity only influences mass. [latex]m=\frac{m_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v_2}{c^2}}}[/latex] Photons has zero rest mass so [latex]m_o=0[/latex] Zero decided by any number =zero Therefore m=0. So why would gravity which only influences mass influence the photon without spacetime curvature?

Sorry that's the formulas for the Hubbles volume, the observable universe is larger than the Hubbles volume. This is due to expansion and the cosmological constant. Hubbles volume is roughly 13.78 GLY, but the observable universe has a radius of 46 GLY. You cannot have g information influence anything without g informaton carrying energy ,momentum or mass. However even assuming g informatons did carry the same as photons, the energy density/ pressure equation of state influence is insufficient to cause the entirety of expansion. Ideal gas laws cosmology under Ultra relativistic matter. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) w=1/3. Grr someone rewrote that page, This is rubbish, Photons follow null geodesics. They have no rest mass which all your equations in your articles utilizes. Without rest mass gravity doesn't directly influence the photons path. The photon merely follows the null geodesic. If the photon gained rest mass it cannot be invariant. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geodesics_in_general_relativity Mass is resistance to being accelerated by a force. Photons have zero resistance,therefore it has no mass. It is invariant. Now your statement informatons have no particle properties they carry NOTHING but information. Makes absolutely 100% zero sense. It amounts to informatons do not exist. The quantum information of a particle is the properties of the particles, you cannot have one without the other. Just as energy is a property of particles. Energy does not exist on its own. Not even as a field You cannot have one without the other, it's like having a length or width without an object to measure Stating informatons transport properties of particles, without being a particle is stating momentum, energy and mass exists outside of particles. Doesn't work. Those are particle properties. They must be transported via particle exchanges. Let's see g- informatons move at c but have no particle properties. Yet moving at c is a particle property, momentum. If it has momentum it has energy. Wow two particle properties. If it has energy then it has a total energy/mass equivalence. That's 3. So how come your stating g- informatons has no particle properties yet I just showed that it does? Via your statement they move at c?

Fair enough, but keep in mind the Planck collaboration papers has. Higher confidence level, Google Planck 2015 for the papers. No theory no matter how accurate will ever state 100% confidence.

Have you ever tried programming? In order to program a simulation you have to have a mathematical model in the first place. A simulation doesn't make a model, it merely tests a model to see if it works. It is simply a tool,

Not quite your jumping ahead again lol here the figures you want for the mean mass density of DM is here http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0406095v2.pdf"The Cosmic energy inventory" now ask yourself how science can come up with all these extensive figures? I should actually link you to the Planck collaboration results. However wiki has the main ones posted. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model you want the physical dark matter density

Here is a coverage of the Lorentz group representations. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representation_theory_of_the_Lorentz_group [quote Yes, informatons are mass, energy and momentumless. . Lets see has no mass, energy or momentum. Then it's not a particle got it. What good is it then? How would it exist ? Sounds like an abstract placeholder

This is pretty much what I figured you were attempting, thanks for clarifying. However I have to ask why you didn't just use virtual photons aka virtual photon field for electromagnetic, and a virtual graviton field for the gravity field? This is the methodology in QFT Assign every point in space a photon, then drop a particle into that field, describe its geometry of influence. An oversymplification but accurate. The advantage though is this is compatible with QM. Virtual photons are off shell, meaning they don't have sufficient energy to be real. Again a simplified explanation. The one key rule however is that they do have particle properties. From your description of informations, having neither mass, nor energy but only information, Your informaton has no particle properties. Therefore it isn't a particle. Quasi-virtual or real. Any model particularly particle models or models that uses particle interactions must use the conservation laws. Spin,momentum,color,flavor,isospin,parity,charge, angular momentum,and energy. The photon is the quage boson (carrier of the electromagnetic force, is only direct (degree of freedom interaction is the electromagnetic force) The graviton is the quage boson (hypothetical) for gravity. As a gauge boson it will have an integer spin. It's assumed to be extremely massive. More massive particles are usually harder to create in an LHC Geometrodynamic field theory has the metrics using the graviton. It's also interesting you seem to want to define space and time, well it's simple really. Space is simply volume, that volume simply contains the particles of the universe. It's not fabric like substance, that's a common misunderstanding. Space time is simply any mathematical model that includes the time component. If you study GR in detail you will notice that the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws, it's fundamental to the Einstein field equations. This is an important detail your model lacks. Space time curvature is an energy density/pressure distribution of the influence of gravity upon the particles contained in the system. Take a look at the stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor notice the energy density term? What I found amusing is your references to GEM, yet no application of the electromagnetic stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor Now assuming your Euclidean model works, Here is a test Explain why a massive body causes the path of photons to bend? Photons have no rest mass and gravity only influences mass. So in your flat Euclidean model why would the light path bend? (This is an observed aspect, a good example being gravitational lensing) Now lets look at the photon and the graviton. In particular it's spin. Photons is spin 1, graviton is most likely spin 2. How does the informaton couple the two different spins without violating the above conservation laws? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton note first and second rate tensors

Here look at the lorentz matrix to see what I have been asking about. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation I honestly don't feel like fighting the latex on matrix postings hrrm all those lines with [latex]-\beta\gamma[/latex] Nvr mind just wasn't connecting the dots brain fart