Mordred

xyct posted this handy link on another thread there is a good coverage of QM on this site as well http://www.feynmanlectures.info/ (its another Feyman site link to his online textbooks, click read on the left handside and you will see 3 textbooks one of them being QM) unfortunately I don't have much in the way of QM material, however you can find some quantum field theory articles on my signature, though most of them are fairly advanced so you will probably need to check them out later on

I agree I follow the philosophy of study everything and every model I come across I always learn something, even with models that I know are incorrect. Some of the metric examples are quite handy if used in other applications. However care must be used to realize which models are more correct than others. Its easy to get confused when some model states it solves a problem and therefore its better than the concordance model of a particular field. I try to ignore such claims, there is reasons why the various models are the concordance models, the simple reason is they are more successful in making predictions and conforming to evidence.

good glad to hear your planning on studying, you may find the materials on my signature handy as a starting point. As you didn't specify a field of research though you may or may not if you can afford a good textbook there is one I found incredibly helpful in regards to the mathematics used in various physics. Though its not directly related to any particular field of physics. "Roads to Reality" by Roger Penrose. he does a great job of taking some of the complexity out of various geometric relations. Its particularly suited to your ideas

an asteroid has no internal processes to cause pressure and yet it exerts a gravitational force, if gravity was the result of pressure differences then asteroids would exert no gravity. So this idea doesn't work. As I stated above ordinary matter causes negligible pressure. see the equations of state. the energy-density of dark matter is also extremely low you can only measure dark matter on very large scales. the energy density of dark matter within a solar system would be insignificant. (also does not exert any pressure) its equation of state is also w=0. Yet it also exerts a gravitational force even though it has no pressure. yes its been considered before and found not to work the last paragraph explains some of the problems. The re-examination of Le Sage's theory in the 19th century identified several closely interconnected problems with the theory. These relate to excessive heating, frictional drag, shielding, and gravitational aberration. The recognition of these problems, in conjunction with a general shift away from mechanical based theories, resulted in a progressive loss of interest in Le Sage’s theory. Ultimately in the 20th century Le Sage’s theory was eclipsed by Einstein’s theory of general relativity. In 1965 Richard Feynman examined the Fatio/Lesage mechanism, primarily as an example of an attempt to explain a "complicated" physical law (in this case, Newton's inverse-square law of gravity) in terms of simpler primitive operations without the use of complex mathematics, and also as an example of a failed theory. He notes that the mechanism of "bouncing particles" reproduces the inverse-square force law and that "the strangeness of the mathematical relation will be very much reduced", but then remarks that the scheme "does not work", because of the drag it predicts would be experienced by moving bodies, "so that is the end of that theory".[59][60] Although it is not regarded as a viable theory within the mainstream scientific community, there are occasional attempts to re-habilitate the theory outside the mainstream, including those of Radzievskii and Kagalnikova (1960),[61] Shneiderov (1961),[62] Buonomano and Engels (1976),[63] Adamut (1982),[64] Jaakkola (1996),[65] Tom Van Flandern (1999),[66] and Edwards (2007).[67] A variety of Le Sage models and related topics are discussed in Edwards, et al.[68] As this states there have been numerous attempts to revitalize this model. also Lesage particles must be superluminal that's also mentioned on the same page

the problem is your limiting yourself, by your own admissions, I am an electronics engineer, Not a physicist all it takes to learn science is dedication in study. As well as the right material. Never limit yourself. We can post the tools to learn by, however you need to show us a willingness to learn. I've already described numerous examples where your logic is flawed. Take the time to understand why I can be so certain as to that answer. Don't use a cop out like its not my field. Anyone on this forum is willing to assist you in understanding any aspect you need help in. However you need to show your willing to learn, otherwise its a waste of our time

and yet another poster that doesn't wish to learn real science be well, have fun with your leaky model by the way I'm not a physicist either, I'm just smart enough to study what is already understood, where you choose to limits based on philosophy compare your article to two of the ones I wrote, http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry which is more scientific in understanding? either way I won't waste my time on trying to teach those with no interest in learning real science

here is a problem with the use of triangles, lets take for example object A,B and C whose influences upon each other has a 3 dimensional influence upon each other, with a geometry described by a triangle, lets call this influence force x, the minute you add a Quote "leak" you add another reference object (after all you need an object to measure said leak), so now you can no longer describe this range of interaction in the terms of a triangle, you now have 4 objects. now you need a parallelogram. See the problem with over simplification? As I stated you need to provide a greater attention to detail, now the others have posted that science is not about greater decimal points, its about being able to accurately define a system within a reasonable approximation. for example I mentioned the ideal gas laws, I can describe the Early universe dynamics by a variety of acceptable methods, each method will provide a reasonable approximation, however I cannot describe how every single particle interacts, to attempt to do so would be futile an useless. Just like a gas in a container the ideal gas laws approximate the processes involved, they do not show how every single molecule interacts with every other molecule. That is simply out of the realm of usefulness. In every complex system there comes a time when a scientist must develop a reasonable approximation to explain the system in relevant terms, he does not waste time trying to solve every single interaction to the highest possible degree, he only needs to be able to use his model to make reasonable predictions about said system. a vast majority of the physics you think of as being exacting are in fact good approximations, scientists tend to favor the metrics that can offer the same results with the least amount of complexity, and the least amount of asumptions This is often referred to as Occum's razor "Occam's razor (also written as Ockham's razor and in Latin lex parsimoniae) is a principle of parsimony, economy, or succinctness used in problem-solving devised by William of Ockham (c. 1287–1347). It states that among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. Other, more complicated solutions may ultimately prove correct, but—in the absence of certainty—the fewer assumptions that are made, the better. a systems complexity grows with the number of degrees of freedom involved, however lets examine a very basic system where each object has only 2 degrees of freedom. (binary) # of particles degrees of freedom 1 2 2 4 3 8 4 16 5 32 6 64 etc see how fast the simple system grows in complexity? trust me science is about reasonable approximations the more exact we get is simply due to needing a higher degree of accuracy to describe a problem set. Here is another good example does it make sense to say scientists worry about every single decimal point when the LCDM model that describes the universe expansion dynamics is a 6 parameter model? If they really worried about every single decimal point and interaction there would be no way they can describe the universe's expansion history with a mere 6 parameters. LCDM provides a good approximation only, it is not exacting lets try a third example [latex]f_1=G\frac{m1m2}{r^2}[/latex] do you think the above equation is exact? what about the amount of matter variations due to every mountain range? (lateral anisotropies), Earth's rotational effects? The Earth for example is not a perfect circle, there is variations in its shape and subsequentially there will be variations of the force of gravity due to those variations in its topology, however as a good approximation the force of gravity at sea level is 9.8 m/s2 the above commonly used formula provides that approximation, however it is by no means exact (draw a line from object A to the center of the Earth, the force of gravity will depend on the amount of mass along that line, over the oceans the amount of mass will be different than the amount of mass over say mount Everest. for practical purposes does this matter?) take the CMB from its temperature I can correlate the number of photons via 2 methods, I can use the FLRW metric approximation or I can use a far more complex Bose-Einstein distribution formula, neither formula will give me the exact number of photons, however both will give me a reasonable approximation. the problem here is what you think is an exacting process isn't, the majority of systems in any form of science is in fact reasonable approximations of complex processes, the models that are favored are the ones that provide the greater accuracy with the least amount of complexity within reason.

"Even black holes leak radiation and leak gravity. Something perfectly boundaried would be entirely invisible, having no effect on the Universe around it; not detectable. Invisible to humans, undetectable by humans, we couldn't see the outside or the inside." this statement is also inaccurate, BH Hawking radiation occurs outside the event horizon, not inside. The virtual particles pairs in Hawking's radiation form outside the event horizon, the positive particle escapes the negative particle falls into the BH. This is the only correlation to anything that refers to a scientific statement that I can find anywhere in your article, and that's even a bit of a stretch. You should also change the word boudaried (which doesn't exist in the English lanquage, to "isolated" something perfectly isolated would have no interactions outside its boundaries would be accurate. However the use of terms here is also inaccurate because a perfectly isolated system wouldn't "Leak". By definition an isolated has no external interactions, therefore a BH is not a perfectly isolated system, as its gravity is able to interact with the rest of the universe. Your whole paper uses the terms leaks, which has no scientific meaning in the context your using it, I would look into how to define a system according to its "Interactions" this would be a proper way to define a system. You also need to clarify what systems you are referring to and in what terms those systems are defined. Are they being defined according to particle to particle interactions? In this case science already does this in all cases, the scientific method is to first describe the system being examined, defining the boundary conditions, then defining the interactions within and outside that system. This is done in every model. So I don't see how your paper adds to what is already practiced in everyday science. I would recommend as a starting point looking at how the ideal gas laws are used in Cosmology. False vacuum is a good example of the ideal gas laws as applied to an isolated region of spacetime. In this case a higher energy potential region of spacetime with the Higg's field acting as the boundary quantum tunnels the higher energy potential to a lower energy potential region of spacetime. This is just one example. The action of quantum tunneling is analogous to "leaks" however the difference is the methodology to defining the system. This is what your article severely lacks as I mentioned you need to spend the time to learn the proper scientific terminology, to properly define the systems in question and properly defining the interactions of said system. These interactions are also already described in terms of geometry as well. as it stands your paper reads like a bunch if gibberish, written by some kid who is just learning science. However as I stated above I don't see anything in this paper that adds to any known science or methodology of science. If anything it merely shows me what you lack in understanding

nice site, I'll definitely need to add this link to my webpage, thanks for posting it

I agree with Strange here, the problem is I'm no closer to understanding your model ideas than the opening post. Think of it this way its like listening to a salesman trying to pitch a yard about how much I would earn by investing in his company without providing any details on his business model, or using non standard terminology. The materials I provided will allow you to use the terminology to better describe your model, the handy part is that you can ask pertinant questions individually on any of its aspects and use those same articles as a reference.

not necessarily, you can have two objects with the same mass, but different volume. Take a simple example a 1 kg lead ball vs a 1kg ball of aluminum. The aluminum ball will have a greater volume. The lead ball has a higher mass density

truthfully whether the universe is infinite or finite is largely meaningless, both models has its own set of problems. The only time this question becomes important is possibly in how the universe began. The Observable universe however is without a doubt finite. As this is the only possible portion we can gather data from it should be our primary area of concern. A solid understanding of how particles interact is critical to our understanding. Its also one of the reasons I study high energy particle physics, some of the references I posted show the correlations. Your model should include those aspects as well. However as far as you've described thus far, the only way to truly develop your model is to sit down bite the bullet and study the textbooks and related articles. Doesn't take a physicist to learn the material, just takes dedication. I myself am not a physicist and am self taught. However I bought over 30 related textbooks. Learning from a forum can only get you so far, the textbooks are the next best thing to institutional training.

I've always liked the root of all evil paper, its one of my favorite articles. I also agree that the zero point universe is AFIAK only used in the universe from nothing model, and I've studied a lot of various models. Many of which are all but forgotten, I never worry too much about how the universe began as I find the subject matter too speculative due to the limits of our understanding and observations. (almost as speculative as multiverse models, but not quite) A working GUT theory may or may not answer that question, or being able to measure the cosmic neutrino background may provide some insight as well. LQC has some strong possibilities, here is a decent pedagogal review of LQC (though it gets technical and the metrics take a bit of getting used to) http://arxiv.org/abs/1302.3833 At the moment answering the questions of how inflation occurs, and explaining dark matter and the cosmological constant, are goals that will lead to a better understanding of how the universe began. Perhaps when we can explain those 3 aspects with a strong degree of certainty then we will have the final pieces to narrow down the universe beginning models (along with a working GUT)

Its tricky to understand what your describing with the last two posts, so I would recommend reading the materials provided. When you do so you should be able to formulate your model ideas with more exacting terminology. It would be far too easy to misinterpret the last two posts, as they say its always best to understand why the current theories exist before developing a new one. One of the reasons for that is that you can at least have the tools to present your model in the same language so to speak, and also more often than not you may find your ideas may already exist or find a reason that invalidates them due to a previous misunderstanding or greater understanding.

actually there is models that have the same basis, as you state though your particular numbers are a bit simplistic. In those models however the total energy is zero. The specific model is called the zero energy universe. The universe from nothing model uses this process. http://physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143 essentially you have effectively negative energy and positive energy. http://www.astrosociety.org/publications/a-universe-from-nothing/ ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf would it surprise you to know that Allen Guth's false vacuum inflation also uses a similar argument? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum also if you look at the thermodynamics of the universe, its essentially the same thing, though instead of 2 variables you have temperature, pressure, energy-density, volume, and entropy. So there is nothing wrong with your line of thinking, you just need the details to fill in the blanks so to speak

the pinpoint beginning is a misnomer if that helps, if you take our observable universe portion only excluding the rest of the possible universe, and reverse expansion and inflation, the our observable universe started at a pinpoint. However that being said we have no idea how large the entire universe is or isn't. A finite value cannot become infinite, and an infinite value cannot become finite. So if the entire universe was infinite in the past it is infinite now. This also means an infinite amount of mass-energy. keep in mind the hot big bang model does not attempt to describe how the universe started. There is two forms of singularity, one is the classical balck hole singularity that everyone is familiar with. The other is simply a point where our current knowledge of physics no longer makes any sense in describing the model being described. This occurs at 10-43 seconds from T=0 of the universe beginning, this s when the hot big bang model starts. Not prior. Physics does not like infinities, whenever possible we try to remove infinities. Some models can actually describe both the BH and the universe beginning without infinities and singularities. The strongest contender is loop quantum cosmology. In this model the universe is a result of a bounce from a previous collapsed universe. In the BH singularity the BH also bounces, however due to time dilation we cannot see the bounce. The paper on this one is Planck stars http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.6562 Planck stars Carlo Rovelli, Francesca Vidotto (Submitted on 25 Jan 2014) A star that collapses gravitationally can reach a further stage of its life, where quantum-gravitational pressure counteracts weight. The duration of this stage is very short in the star proper time, yielding a bounce, but extremely long seen from the outside, because of the huge gravitational time dilation. Since the onset of quantum-gravitational effects is governed by energy density --not by size-- the star can be much larger than planckian in this phase. The object emerging at the end of the Hawking evaporation of a black hole can then be larger than planckian by a factor (m/mP)n, where m is the mass fallen into the hole, mP is the Planck mass, and n is positive. The existence of these objects alleviates the black-hole information paradox. More interestingly, these objects could have astrophysical and cosmological interest: they produce a detectable signal, of quantum gravitational origin, around the 10−14cm wavelength. its got some intriquing possibilities, LQC is a strong contender for LCDM

Glad to hear you plan on reading the articles, there is no doubt that there is a lot of material to absorb and it will take a considerable amount of time. The Liddle textbook is a bit out of date though not too bad. Its one of the reasons that Liddle is allowing it for free distribution. It is still very handy however, as it does still teach one the basics of cosmology as well as particle physics

The universe is modeled as a 3d volume with 1 time dimension, it is possible to create a universe model void of any matter or particles, one such example is the Milne universe. which is a specialized flat Minkowski space http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milne_model the Milne universe has its uses in showing how a universe could behave if there is no matter, its useful for comparison purposes, Barbera Rydens Introductory to Cosmology has various toy universe where she removes various influences, and then shows how the universe would behave, She steps it through single component and multi-component universes. Its an excellent textbook and out of the 12 that I own she is the only one that does so.

no actually you never described your special tape in the same terms as quantum foam, by the way there is more evidence showing that space is smooth not lumpy and quantum foam has yet to be validated, the evidence points against quantum foam. Not for it. http://www.space.com/19202-einstein-space-time-smooth.html by the way post 42 is essentially the same as quantum foam if you look at the metrics, which you never bothered doing or posting for your model. Even then quantum foam is still a geometric descriptive of virtual particle interactions. Its still not saying space has substance where your special tape analogy does. Also the quantum foam conjecture suffers from the problem of being 120 magnitudes of order too large in terms of energy. You can't trust pop media article descriptive's. Yes I posted one this time but only because I had already posted a detailed descriptive. just as a side note, photons is a particle, however it isn't considered to be matter though. The virtual particles in quantum foam is virtual photons. see this thread for details http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84242-definition-of-matter-split-from-could-matter-exist-of-energy/#entry815149 this is your special tape descriptive which has nothing to do with quantum foam, and has zero simularities

if you consider the definition above and fermions then the distinction is extremely appropriate, An arbitrary number of bosons can reside in the same quantum space, so they themselves do not take up space, regardless of whether or not the particle itself has mass, such as the Higg's boson. However only one fermion can occupy the same quantum state/space, so fermions do take up space. As long as you remember the standard definition of mass and occupies space, as being both requirements. I don't think the supersymmetry particles will alter that

glad to hear that, as far as what the universe is expanding into, well this article covers that rather well http://www.universetoday.com/1455/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/ surprising for a pop media article, but this one is actually accurate. here is a few articles that cover common 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 (personal professor friend of mine wrote this one, covers superluminal expansion) 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 http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh this one is particularly handy in a FAQ style to cover the LCDM model 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. your atomic clock question is better suited for another thread in the relativity forum. edit forgot to add a handy tutorial by Ned Wright http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_01.htm

to answer your question, yes there is a lot of empty space, here is the link http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.1418 its the technical document covering the simulation. as far as the amount of empty space is concerned Yes there is lots of empty space, I've shown how you can calculate the amount from the critical density. The number of particle correlation to the critical density 9.0 *10-10 joules per m3 shown it the previous post works out to an average of 6 protons per m3. When you consider how small a proton is and how much volume a m3 has. That's a lot of unused volume per cubic meter, Now multiply that number by the volume of the observable universe. = a whole lot of empty volume. post 28 has the calculations, post 32 covers how to do similar calculations from the temperature at a given time period. the first two articles of post 32 covers how to use those equations in post 32 now lets assume for a second that you double the average energy-density so instead of 9.0 Joules per m3 you have 18 joules per m3 you now have a non critically dense universe. The universe would no longer expand, it would contract and collapse. in your case where you wish to fill all of empty space it would collapse even faster. [latex]\Omega=\frac{P_{total}}{P_{crit}}[/latex] [latex]\Omega[/latex] =density [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] the critical density is the boundary value between universe models that expand forever (open models) and those that recollapse (closed models) now if your universe energy density is greater than the critical density the universe will collapse the equation used is the FLRW metric in my example k=+1 a positive curvature universe in your case it would be greater than +1, the universe today according to the best datasets WMAP and PLANCK the universe is k=0 flat. see the last two equations in the 4d section on this article, for some reason I can never get these two equations to latex on this site, believe me its fustrating, as I have no problem doing the latex for those two equations on other sites.) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ page 1 of that article is http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry see where your going to have a problem with stating that there is no empty space? I'm going by your descriptive as you haven't shown any mathematics as of yet this is one of the problems with personal theories, seems like everyone tries to solve the mysteries of the universe, however they rarely take the time to understand what the current theories state or why they state what they do. Its akin to having your 13 year old kid telling his/her parents how to live. (for some reason teenagers always have all the answers lol)(no offense to any teenagers reading this thread, I just had a lengthy discussion with one of my grandchildren). I hope you do take the time to use the articles I posted, one of them is a full length textbook, that includes the particle physics aspects.

Ok now here is the problem with your line of thinking, space does not need to be created, it is simply a change in volume, a change in volume does not require energy to increase the volume of space. As the volume of space expands the energy-density will lower PV=nRT This is a very common misconception of space. Another problem is that energy does not exist on its own, you require particles, energy is exchanged via particle interactions. I pointed out the ideal gas laws a few times in my previous posts, the reason I did so was so you would look at how they are applied in terms of describing the Universe as a perfect fluid. As I mentioned space is simply geometric volume or distance (2d). Space itself has no substance so there is no need for energy to be used up to create that substance. The terminologies you have seen on space being warped, created etc are merely analogies used to describe energy-density geometric relations of how gravity interacts with the matter that reside in the volume of space. These terms are often confusing as they tend to imply that space itself has a substance. This isn't what GR is saying. this recent thread "What is Space" will cover those details, as you will see its a common confusion an its also sometimes difficult to convince others that space is simply geometric volume, that is later filled with the contents of the universe. As the volume increases, the average distribution of the ideal gas fills that volume, just like a gas would do so if you inflate a balloon. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83690-what-is-space/ I would also recommend you read this balloon analogy in terms of what space is expanding into etc http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion post 8 shows some of the methods used to describe the universe in terms of the ideal gas laws, and I was hoping you would have understood the first line "if you apply the ideal gas laws you will quickly see that expansion and energy-density reduction are part of the same process." Your premise of energy is used up to create space is wrong, as space isn't a substance that needs to be created, this would then invalidate your model idea. As the premise of the model is based on a misconception (don't feel bad though when I first started studying Cosmology I fell into this trap myself, the vast majority of the populace does)

never would have thought of that definition, makes sense though

ah now I understand what your getting at, didn't quite follow it from your previous post. The term matter has no clear cut definition "Before the 20th century, the term matter included ordinary matter composed of atoms, and excluded other energy phenomena such as light or sound. This concept of matter may be generalized from atoms to include any objects having mass even when at rest, but this is ambiguous because an object's mass can arise from its (possibly-massless) constituents' motion and interaction energies. Thus, matter does not have a universal definition, nor is it a fundamental concept, in physics today. Matter is also used loosely as a general term for the substance that makes up all observable physical objects" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter this page goes into details on the ambiquities commonly matter is Definition: Matter has many definitions, but the most common is that it is any substance which has mass and occupies space. All physical objects are composed of matter, in the form of atoms, which are in turn composed of protons, neutrons, and electrons. photons as they have no rest mass is not considered a form of matter, a particle yes, matter no but this is also ambiguous, see the wiki page