Mordred

Deleted last post not appropriate for topic

I have yet to see any metrics of your model. Please show your version of the FLRW metrics and the related thermodynamic equations. I would like to see how your metrics compare to the observational evidence of LCDM Which is currently the most accurate model to observational evidence

Forgot the link lol http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf you can find more under my signature This article covers the misconceptions associated with rate of expansion. http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf

Your under a few misconceptions. We do see objects beyond the Hubble sphere those objects have an apparent recessive velocity of 3c at z=1090. The universe expands at the same rate per volume given by Hubbles constant. Roughly 70 km/s/Mpc this rate of expansion is far slower than the distance light can travel in one second. So locally light has no problem overcoming the rate of expansion. Recessive velocity itself is a distance dependant value Hubbles law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. v=Hd. There is also thermodynamic evidence that supports expansion the ideal gas laws apply to cosmology. The temperature of the CMB was 3000kelvin today the universe is 2.73 kelvin. This temperature drop is explained by the ideal gas lawsas the volume of the universe expands the temperature and density drops. The CMB is a result of particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium and being able to form stable reactions due to that temperature drop of far higher temperatures prior to the CMB. Here is a good paper covering the thermodynamics

I would have a hard time thinking of them as mini universes. Lol anyways virtual particles share the same characteristics of real particles just extremely short lived. They are thought to be produced in a wide range of methods. Blackholes with Hawking radiation. as well as Unruh radiation. Parker radiation (older inflation model) The inflaton (chaotic eternal inflation) curvaton (cant recall which inflation model). There is also one produced at magnitars due to magnetic perturbations. And the Casimar experiment. there is probably more the zero energy universe is also based on virtual particle production. Then you have QMs zero point energy. E=1/2hv which involves the Heisenburg uncertainty principle snd the harmonic oscillator. The later particle physics model SO(10) may hold an answer involving the Higgs metastability and its seesaw mechanism. There have been numerous papers posted on the subject. [url=http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/#entry811661]http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/#entry811661[/url anyways my current research has changed due to Higgs studies. The later SO(10) model may hold the key to inflation as well as the cosmological constant due to the Higgs metastability. Here is an older post in regards to what I am still researching and the direction I am now looking into link at top. This has far better promise than my failed model As far as cosmological constant driven by virtual particles from another it could be homogeneous,isotropic and constant the problem is obviously does a multiverse exist? but thats a lengthy topic that tends to lead to answers based on philosophy rather than physics physics is certainly the emphirical evidence isn't there

It also has nothing to do with electrons and protons being particle pairs lol. Binding energy is the amount of energy to break the nucleus up into its constituent components this is basically how stable a neutron proton configuration is. However nuclear fusion fission isn't a field I'm well versed on. You mentioned studying early universe conditions I recommend this article its one of the best Ive come across for covering nucleosynthesis. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf Early universe particle physics

http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1977PhLB...70..187A&sa=U&ei=cO9VVLLgDYuiyQSBu4Eo&ved=0CBIQFjADOAo&sig2=GWr242MpJKZG174v0vLJBw&usg=AFQjCNE0u3kB0HQBibUqCK6MLzQ7c1emjw http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics) http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/101229/energy-of-quarks-and-the-mass-of-the-proton&sa=U&ei=zvJVVLXOMZagyASZuoHwCw&ved=0CA0QFjAB&sig2=WsH-ULLXIovUvCR4Y2lpmw&usg=AFQjCNGwhkgrKUih_weanEMjJFHqhjStNQ the last is just a quick google search on the mass of the proton I can't post the info in the 6 particle physics textbooks I own Not to mention the QED and QCD specific textbooks

I see so you choose to ignore the related lie algebra including conservation of charge, conservation of spin, conservation of isospin conservation of flavor. The Eightfold wayen as well as the lepton and meson nonet in favor of a personal model which has no body of evidence. What part of we already can produce the antiproton at Fermilabs you didn't understand? Or for that matter the positron? I suggest you buy a copy of Griffiths " Introduction to particle physics" its an excellent book the first chapter covers how particles are discovered and defined. He also covers the items I just posted http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark_model I suppose next your going to tell me quarks do not exist and the fact that the proton has quarks where the electron had none is meaningless.

First off the electron and proton cannot be particle pairs for more reasons than just its mass the electron is part of the lepton family its interactions as such does not include the strong force. The electrons anti particle is the positron. The electron is an elementary particle the best research today shows it has no subsystem. It is not made up of quarks. The proton is a member of the hadron family. It is made up of quarks. Specifically 2 up and 1 down. Its interactions is all 4 forces. 99% of its rest mass is the strong force and kinetic energy of the quarks in its make up. your formula also makes little sense as your using the designated symbol for the photon on the left What precisely do you mean by proton potential its rest mass? Or observer potential? Forgot to add the proton has an anti particle the anti proton. Both are generated everyday at LHCs so we know without a doubt they exist. Elfmotat already pointed out the issue of merely changing symbols others have pointed out the other problems in the Humpty thread. Now what constitutes a particle anti particle pair. All properties of a particle and its anti particle MUST be the same except its charge. Charge being its color charge but includes it electromagnetic charge so in the case of the proton the anti proton has two up antiquarks and 1 down antiquark http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge In other words the must have the same mass, spin and be part of the same family of particles. As well as have the same interactions. The only similarity between the two is they are both 1/2 spin and have opposite electromagnetic charges.

For the second time SO(10) is NOT a personal model. It is an official particle physics model supported by professional professors in the field of particle physics. Its amazing you don't grasp that even when you can see the professional peer reviewed article covering it in my post above I have no personal model that I am pushing. Get it right and actually take the time to learn the real science today. If you don't believe me google it yourself simply type SO(10) onto your googke search engine

Nature please answer questions in accordance to the textbook or concordance teachings. In other words what would be taught in the classrooms. Or with published peer reviewed support When your answering someone elses questions it is not the time to push personal models. Now to the OP no one knows what caused the asymmetry between matter and antimatter More information can be found by googling the term baryogenesis. There may or may not have been a previous stage called leptogenesis. One of the later Particle physics models feel it may have some bearing on the Higgs instability however there isn't as of yet sufficient evidence to support this claim. the later model is the SO(10) MSM which is essentially the standard model with the standard model Higgs added. The model is still waiting for sufficient supportive evidence from the various LHC,s CERN included It should be noted gamma rays etc create antimatter all the time however as there is more matter the antimatter is short lived. However they are not travelling back in time AJB covered that detail. Here is an article covering antimatter surrounding the Earth http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110810-antimatter-belt-earth-trapped-pamela-space-science/ http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g here is a lengthy review paper on the SO(10) models. There is various sections covering the matter antimatter asymmetry

I'm done as well you have zero prep work yet claim your model replaces years if work of countless professional physicists. You don't even acknowledge any understanding of GUT or the Supersymmetry model. When asked to show your work your response is "wait for it" present your model when you have some work to present. look into the existing models and subsequent terminologies. learn the mathematics behind them they are in fact mostly geometric. till then I'm done wasting my time

Roflmao whoever said the SO(10) MSSM or SO(10)MSM model is mine. I could only wish.lol these are two particle physics models that represent the standard model+The Higgs and supersymmetry+the Higgs. I posted a professional peer review paper on both of them in this thread. Now I know you have no idea what supersymmetry means in physics if you didnt understand the post you qouted. Ajb certainly did as that quote and post was directed to him. I know he is familiar with GUT theories and is familiar with the terminology I used in that reply http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/201 3/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g My apologies I posted the paper on another thread. Anyways the link covers SO(10) both in the standard and supersymmetric model. If you study this article you will realize why your model has nothingvto do with the accepted supetsymmetry (Susy) model and understand the post you quoted which I posted in reply to Ajb

Don't worry I'm not downhearted having the ability to disprove my own model simply means I learned from it. Solving the cosmological problem would have had a huge effect on our scientific society lol I was fully aware of how challenging it is when I started so I am not surprised of the results. However the effort of trying taught me far more than mere study of textbooks.

I did the work on my laptop which recently crashed. The gist of the model is as follows any energy density region higher than a ground state. Ground state being e=1/2hv due to the uncertainty principle. Any energy regions higher than this will spread out until it reaches the ground state. In order to deal with the homogeneaty and isotropy issue and speed of information exchange I used the false to true vacuum process and quantum tunneling. the problem with that however is the amount of energy transferred via tunneling from false vacuum to true vacuum is the difference between the two. So as one region balances to another region the energy exchange changes. Unfortunately the cosmological constant is constant this is the part I couldnt find a solution to. However I havent completely abandonned it. Cutrently I am studying the thermodynamic contributions to the Higgs field itself. The Higgs field is already evenly dispersed so its interactions will contribute to the universes temperature. This strikes me as a more promising possibility than the model I just described for one thing quantum tunneling isnt needed. When your dealing with something the size of the universe. information exchange rate is limitted to c quantum tunneling doesnt allow a faster exchange which is another problem. the rigid rod of relativity is a good analogy. Take a rod 1 light year in length. Move one end of the rod. It will take 1 light year before the other end moves. quantum tunneling doesnt fix this problem I never posted the model as its one I can disprove I come up with an idea to solve a problem in it then research the idea. Then I apply the mathematics with several different related metrics. Those metrics usually point out a problem in the model. Keep in mind I learned a lot from when I first started the model till today. 2 years ago I thought information could be exchanged faster than c via quantum tunneling.

You have to look at it in terms if pressure tske a balloon place it into a vacuum chamber. Then increase the vacuum pressure. The gas inside the balloon will expand outward. Anistropic we have a preferred direction. As objects and gas must move slower than c you would also be inhomogeneous as the universe adjusts to the new volume. The outer regions will inititially adjust first and progressively adjust inward. remember even information is limitted to c. So there is no way the universe could maintain a continous balance to an outside pressure to itself the cosmological constant however develops everywhere equally. As new volume becomes becomes equally available at all locations in accordance to the cosmological principle the metrics of isotropic and homogeneous expansion is preserved. The rate of expansion per unit volume regardless of location is the Hubble constant. Whuch is constant everywhere at a particular time only. It can be different tomorrow or in the past but must be the same everywhere. Now if there was a mechanism of quantum tunneling involved where the arrival destinations were homogeneous and isotropic then an outside pressure influnce could lead to a homogeneous and isotropic model. Side note the problem facing the model idea your referring to is identical to the pronlems that caused me to abandon my natural pressure dispertion model

The key issues have already been answered but lets touch upon the related physics altering issues. we will use the largest quasar group. Lets look at what those quasars influence in terms of the FLRW metric specifically. (which includes the ideal gas laws) first the influence upon gravity of each quasar is a local influence not a global one. Gravities strength quickly reduces the further you move from an object. The gravity drops off fast enough that the individual quasars within that group are not affected by each other. now the influence upon the local energy density. for this we need the equation of state for matter. If you google equation of state cosmology yiu can easily find the wiki page. matter whether its baryonic or non baryonic exerts next to zero influence upon pressure. So this means that the pressure in those regions and the subsequent energy density of those regions is no different than anywhere else. So in terms of universe geometry, curvature, localized temperature and average energy density those regions are still uniform compared to everwhere else. Therefore the ideal gas laws, FLRW metric, Einstein Feild equations, LQC equations etc all still work to the same degree of accuracy. As they all still work to a good approximation (no equation is pefect in the ideal gas laws) then why change them?

Not really I refer to the general layman, some subjects are easier to self learn than others. Susy is simply one of the trickier theories as there is more model variations and contention than the SM models. Though atm some of the SO(10) MSSM variations are giving me headaches as each time I download an article or dissertation on the subject I come across variations in the lie groups. due partly to variations in the number of higglets and subsequence seesaw mechanisms lol but hey Ive only been at it for a couple of months as time allows. Lol Thankfully I bought a couple of textbooks on the lie algebra that include the SO(10) group the SO(10) MSM standard model us far simpler on the Higgs couplings as your only dealing with the 126 Higgs with 4 degrees if freedom including its antiparticle and max 2 mexican hat potentials via 2 max seesaw potentials in the 10^10 to 10^12 TeV range below VeV though the seesaws aren't an issue on the EWSB or chiral symmetry breaking

Sorry I didnt see your post glad you started a new thread on the subject. Here is the thing about homogeneaty. "At a sufficiently large enough scale the universe appears to be the same throughout." what this means in a nutshell is that if one scake does not give the appearance of homogeneaty in measurements. Back on the 80's that scale was roughly 100 Mpc. Some textbooks today still publish that value. One such is Barbera Rydens "Introductory to cosmology" however later challenges such as the Sloan great wall forced that scale to increase. Irregularities can still be present. There is a homogeneaty function calculation that is sometimes used to determine what the scale should be set at. Now Liddle makes an excellent point on this page. "physical structures do not necessarily need ti be homogeneous as long as the laws of physics are the same" (not an exact quote) working from phone atm. What this means is that rates of expansion thermodynamic properties are still homogeneous therefore the FLRW metrics, the Einstein field equations the ideal gas laws, power law spectrums ie CMB etc are all still homogeneous despite the presence of those irregularities. None of the major models such as the LCDM model lose any predictive power as a result. if they do then you can still increase the scale. However last I heard 120Mpc is still sufficient. Could or could not be higher now. hope that helps http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle Quote is the second principle Now considering ghose discoveries we still see recent and up to date articles written in accordance with the cosmological principle by the top physicists in the world today. They are all aware of these discoveries and they still adhere to the cosmological principle. Both the Planck data and the recent Bicep data still find a strong agreement with the cosmological principle. These data sets were both published after those discoveries. So evidentally the cosmological principle is still accurate to a high sigma level that those structures are not a concern (really wish my operating system on my laptop hadn't crashed I had a specific paper on the subject that came out after the last find) it was an arxiv paper and suggested a scale increase to 200 Mpc however I have yet to see any further changes in current articles on the scale perhaps someone else has By the way the Planck south pole anistrophy was found to be a calibration error. Forgot to add the 2012 quasar cluster is at z=1.3 believe thats the right one. Anyways the universe was 4.77 Gly where thats located so the sverage density is naturally higher just a side note it was still considered a challenge by some Side note FYI 2 the rate of expansion was slowing down as this is part of the matter dominant era. The lambda dominant era starts at 7.3 Gly and the rate of expansion starts to accelerate.

Here lets try the tine dependant Schrodinger equation http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation I have no problem with your research I just feel proper terminology is essential to avoid confusion. Particularly in the absense of the mathematics Any forum has readers that never post or register so corrections of tetminology is even more important. We wouldn't want those readers to walk away with the wrong ideas of what a model states. Particularly one as well known but poorly understood as SUSY. Lol call it recursive symmetry I dont think that name is used. Good luck on your research Im still looking for that paper I mentioned earlier as its very similar

I could post and explain formulas all day long. The majority of the formulas do have symmetries. I would be extremely hard presses to find a formula that didn't have some form of symmetry. The question is what kind of symmetry. Your model specifically describes either projective or parity symmetry. If you have multiple reflections such as a crystal lattice it has wallpaper symmetry. Here is a list of types of symmetries glide reflection projective Poincare transformation spacial translation spacial rotation time translation cylindrical spherical Discrete the 3 types specific to particle physics c-symmetry =charge symmetry(particle,antiparticle) p-symmetry (everything appears as if in a mirror) T-symmetry time reversal super symmetry specifically means that every boson must have a superpartner (specifically a fermion that is heavier than its boson partner) As stated nearly every formuls has some form of symmetry. You however seem to think they are all reflective, p-symmetry or wallpaper symmetry and call this by another symmetry name that already has a specific meaning. Then you don't take the time to learn why this confuses those that do know the proper terminology. which is surprising because you could save yourself tons of typing and having to continously explain repetively your posts. Anyways I honestly cannot think of any formula that doesn't have sone form of symmetry. However they are all not reflective nor wallpaper or p-symmetry. Most of the formulas is physics are geometric based most ppl don't realize that detail one of the required mathematics is differential geometry the extra dimensions for string theory sre geometric symmetry influences. Some dimensions describe a rotational dimension others describe a cylindrical infuence. These are specific dimensions where all the interactions of that dimension share the same symmetry. This is a physics forum if any poster comes here and uses incorrect terminology or makes mistakes he should expect and appreciate corrections. After all we all come here to learn this includes posters trying to show his ideas in the specation forum. Too often though they figure they have solved the universe but fail to accept corrections and learn from them. Can you demonstrate a formula with a non linear relation? e=mc^2 has a linear relation socis fairly easy to show a symmetry. I would like to see how your model idea works with a nonlinear relation such as one of the QM wave function equations.

According to these papers its a CMB signal http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0004357&sa=U&ei=2KZSVNbOHpKjyASz5oJg&ved=0CBEQFjAD&sig2=CFXkfa0OHG6zDguP8xJIqg&usg=AFQjCNFUnrJnFcFnqCY_HZehXPSbi36q8g It is the instrinsic CMB fluctuation signal http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.itp.kit.edu/~ertl/Hauptseminar/papers/Bernardis_a_flat_universe_from_high_resolution_maps_of_the_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation.pdf&sa=U&ei=Qa5SVK_UDIOwyAThqoLABA&ved=0CA0QFjAB&sig2=Hlg8SYcp3cFoWtlxgdB2tw&usg=AFQjCNE8pG0CQz_jHhQfwP0UPaFhKsYHwg The second paper discusses its significance as its the multipole [latex]l_{peak}[/latex]. Which has applications in determinig the universes density to detrmine our universes geometry. Its also a supportive piece of evidence for inflation and a flat universe. Along with the other signals from the CMB power spectrum and related accoustic oscillations I must admit researching this signal on its importance to cosmology was a good suggestion by the OP. Well done

Your right I have no interest in studying your ideas. I prefer to study the ideas of ppl that can show the metrics behind their models. Anything less is a waste of my time as it is like listening to a 10 year old who played the "Doctor" game give advise on how to perform a heart transplant You recall the one with the bright red nose that went off everytime you touched the sides of the opening PS I know precisely why my model idea doesn't work I performed the various mathematics on it and could not get it to match observational evidence regardless of what theory paradigm I used. LCDM, MOND, ADS/CFT,QFT or string. I tested it numerous theories. None if them would allow me to explain why the cosmological constant remains constant under my models premise but then again no model can answer that question. So my model doesn't improve our understanding of the cosmological constant therefore its useless

No they are not similar or related. If they were their distribution and properties would have similarities. Dark matter isnt nearly as evenly distributed as the cosmological constant aka dark energy. The amount of dark matter is finite throughout the universes evolotion in time where the total amount of dark energy increases as the universe expands. If one caused the other then the rate of change would in one species would reflect upon the rate of change in the other species.

40 years and not once trying to apply mathematics to a model Are you kidding me? Suddenly I don't feel so bad wasting a mere two years trying to get my model idea on dark energy to fit the well proven FLRW metric and related thermodynamic formulas. Just glad I learned my idea won't work. thanks for making me feel better about myself