Mordred

As neutrinos are fermionic you may get a higher degree of approximation using the Fermi-Dirac statistic equation. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi%E2%80%93Dirac_statistics I would also recommend seperating each species of neutrinos, calculating each seperately with the Fermi Dirac then totalling. The number of degrees of freedom of each species is part of the Fermi Dirac You can group the particle anti particle pairs just make sure you have that reflected in the degrees of freedom This will account for temperature changes due to neutrino interactions

No problem glad to help I don't see anything inaccurate in your last statement. Looks like your getting the hang of it. Keep up the good work Looking over it again. A couple of points. What we see is the past events ie CMB. As our time and the past progress at the same rate. We will see the progressive change in the past events of that region. Which is an earlier state progress towards our thermodynamic state. Albeit a different distant region. Since the CMB this will be the lowering of the blackbody temperature. It's probably what you meant

As Strange mentioned its not Doppler effect as per se. It's a similar effect however. For expansion the correct term is cosmological redshift. When gravity is involved ie gravity wells. You have gravitational redshift. Each has its own formula as the cause and therefore amount of influence on the 3 is different Doppler is motion.

The problem isn't the particle list you stated the neutron decays into. The problem is your misguided methodology of the decay process. I gave you a hint when I mentioned the conservation list I provided. The key one is conservation of color. Which is how the quarks decay from the neutron to form the proton. In order for this chain to work you are missing one key virtual particle which carried a specific charge. Hence the conservation of charge infraction. The conservation of flavor is also maintained by that missing particle. [latex]W^-[/latex] A particle does not contain other particles. Decay does not mean a particle is made up of the particles they decay into. The others have already pointed out your other mistakes in your descriptive such as the anti mass. There is no such entity. Anti particles have positive mass not anti mass. The only difference between a particle and it's antimatter component is its charge Ps the decay chain needed uses that particle in an intermediate decay to reach your resultant particles. Google neutron decay for examples Here this basic site has the feyman diagram https://www.quora.com/What-causes-a-free-neutron-to-decay-and-what-becomes-of-it conservation laws http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flavour_(particle_physics) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_isospin http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strangeness this one also applies in decays http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charge_conservation The other conservation laws are commonly known. conservation of energy, momentum and spin Google eightfold way on the Baryon conservation. Including the Baryon decuplet Baryon octet There is also the meson octet to be familiar with As they apply to the above conservation laws Forgot to add the different quarks have different mass.

Lol I know the owner of that site that happens to be his online name as well. He is brilliant when it comes to entanglement.

That company isn't out to prove entanglement. They use the process, they have also built single photon emitters and detectors. If you look at their technical details the majority is concerned with how to maintain the entanglement. These components are being designed for quantum communications. (Not faster than light lol). That's another myth. The components work, and it's not the only company in this market. As Strange mentioned its about examining the properties or polarization. Through the process a form of communication is possible at the quantum level. If you can develop a quanta per quanta communication. The rate of communication and amount of data per packet is greatly increased. Note this is not the same as quantum computing though this technology may advance such. Entanglement has undergone numerous tests, As far as I know they were able to maintain entanglement up to a 100 miles. However that was several years ago.

Here use these particle entanglement diodes that can and are used. If you look at the links on the same page they also have single photon detectors. I'd say entanglement is real. http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/entangledled.html By the way entanglement is NOT instant communications. That's a pop media myth

It's not adversary to follow the forum rules and show at least the mathematics behind a model. Any one can make pretty statements and claim a discovery etc. However when it comes down to the mathematics. They rarely attempt to provide them. Instead they get defensive. Here is the thing a model with no mathematics is NOT a model. The idea or descriptive is just the premise only. A model is Premise Mathematics Experimental and repeatable evidence comparisons with other current models Repeated experiments to find problems to disprove your model. Thus far you have shown an idea that barely counts as a premise

Swansort already mentioned that Besides those rules I mentioned include energy and momentum

I suggest you study the gauge symmetry rules. Your model breaks conservation of color, flavor, Lepton number and isospin. Study the SO(5) and SO(10) symmetry rules

There are numerous variations of virtual productions and mechanisms. Casimmir effect is an electromagnetic variation. Le Sage however isn't due to the Casimir effect but rather a particle aether exerting pressure the force of gravity is defined by the ultra mundane corpuscle particles exerting pressure. Keep in mind this model was developed back when the aether was thought to be a requirement. They didn't have virtual particle theories back in the 1700's As Strange mentioned though there have been later modifications to the Le Sage model including forms of virtual particles producing the same effect. Big Nose pointed out the primary problem of medium based space in the other thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81656-the-universe-is-a-continuum-of-matter/?p=843991

One other question I wish to answer in greater detail was your concern on homogeneous and isotropy in terms of expansion. First we must be clear the rate of expansion is calculated per the time period being modelled. In the FLRW metric. The point in time being modelled is the scale factor and it includes the rate of expansion as a function of time. This correlates to the proper distance which can change over time. Vs the commoving distance which we use the CMB as a reference point. From this you can see that the rate of expansion is determined at any point in time and we can account for its evolution when measuring objects in our past to our present. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) The math relations to Z is on this page. As well as the related formulas. Surprising enough wiki does this FLRW variable justice in its coverage. One thing to note on the term homogeneous many people do not understand. It is a term that depends on the area being measured. Take a lake on a windy day for example. Up close and at a small volume it is obviously inhomogeneous. You can easily discern the waves Eddie's and swirls. It is obviously not uniform. However if you look at the same lake from a higher height and measure a larger area those ripples are no longer discernable. Now you can model the lake to a good approximation as being homogeneous andbisotropic. Cosmology works the same way. At small scales there is numerous variations. Large scale structures, galaxies stars etc. However if you increase the measurement area those inhomogeneous regions filter out. They are no longer discernable. In the FLRW metric the scale that homogeneity occurs is usually considered to be 100 Mpc. However later discoveries Sloan great wall etc, May cause us to once again increase that scale. Figures I have read suggest 130 Mpc. However I don't believe an increase has occured as of yet in the main stay. So the fact that expansion does not affect gravitationally bound objects isn't a factor in the FLRW metrics. Those inhomogeous regions are essentially filtered out. In point of fact the FLRW metric does not work within large scale structures or within galaxies. Those inhomogeneous regions typically also have anistropies involved. Different metrics is used to model those areas. They may bear similarities to the FLRW metric however they involve modifications depending on the system being modelled. Typically in those regions the Einstein field equations are often used. You have greater flexibility in observer relations and stress energy tensors for interactions such as gravity. The gas law trick is to model individual uniform regions seperately, then apply an imaginary boundary between two uniform regions then develop the metrics to describe the interactions between the two regions. (The boundary region). Hope this helps A good example of the latter method is a black hole. The event horizon is the seperation of one spacetime to another. As you can model the influence of gravity with the Einstein field equations the outer region is modelled inclusively. However you can examine the different ergosphere regions within the accretion disk seperately apply boundaries around those regions then discuss the interactions between the ergospheres seperately. (Hint this methodology is used in most physics models to some extent. Though can add individual interaction dimensions). Good examples is ADS/CFT,QFT,particle physics and string theory So in answer to the opening post title the answer is only limited by the data available, the ability to describe the relations involved in those data sets. Size of the region's isn't an issue. The only issue is data and understanding of that data. And how to seperate regions of interactions from regions of non interaction.

Not completely there is a point where the z rate of change has a sharper curve. If only I could post the lightcone results on my signature.http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf[/url The results of the calculator will match the graph on page 26 of the above article As well as the redshift graph on page 40 As you can see it's not a linear but a curved relation Due to the formulas used Don't quote me on this but if I recall the distance to luminosity relations is also part of the reason Which is also why the common redshift formula everyone knows is only valid for close distances. This is mentioned in the distance measures article in my previous post by Hoggs http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CCsQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Farxiv.org%2Fpdf%2Fastro-ph%2F9905116&rct=j&q=proper%20time%20cosmology&ei=o4uhVOe8EpOnyATs6ICYAw&usg=AFQjCNENt8vXuRz1vhm6vF3-TawOcXsUcA&sig2=_FVL77t2rD6gMvWYoBTx7A

You have a lot of independant questions here. So rather than try to fully answer them all I'm going to post a handy tutorial website. However the page I will post is specific to your redshift. Look at the curvature of the worldlines. The applicable relations and reasons are on this site. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_02.htm it's a good idea to read the entire tutorial. For an intro tutorial its excellent. photon and particle counts is per the same time period. It's rather complex to explain without getting extremely intense into the ideal gas laws and thermodynamics. But you do the estimates at a specific time period using the average temperature of that time period. The two statistic equations I mentioned are used. I'll dig up an example I'll try to find a simplified example. Bose Eintein statistics is a bit advanced. This is a good training but lengthy article on statistical mathematics. http://www.physics.uoguelph.ca/poisson/research/spii.pdf I'm still looking for a simpler example Here is about one of the simpler examples http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.astronomy.ohio-state.edu%2F~dhw%2FA873%2Fnotes4.pdf&rct=j&q=number%20of%20photon%20in%20the%20universe%20calculations%20%20pdf&ei=BpKlVIP1A8P3yQSVuYCoAw&usg=AFQjCNHU4o_AumJDNrn44y-WnpRazIWKuQ&sig2=M3kWLon30HDv8WewHqOhDQ

To add to this I've read several of Wilcezs puplished papers. His work in the field of QCD is masterful. I particularly enjoyed his lattice lattice gauge symmetry paper. As far as assymptotic freedom his mathematics definetely does not even hint at an ether. Specifically it involves quark color interactions. His Crystal time models are also specific to symmetry time reversal breaking. However as you mentioned asymptotic freedom here is his paper on it. http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0502113 One should never rely on pop media literature even if it is presented by the author of a theory. Too often it has been "Dummie'd down so the public can read it. This often leads to misrepresentation of the actual model. I've read numerous of his papers on various aspects of QCD and QFT never had I seen any indication of anything remotely resembling an aether theory. Just good employment of virtual particle production, zero point energy and lattice configurations to explain particle symmetries.

The answer to that is contained in the distance measures article I posted earlier. We calculate the proper and commoving distance from the redshift. Those are the two terms you need to grasp. Commoving distance includes expansion along line of site. As Hubbles constant is only constant everywhere at a moment in time. Proper distance is the calculated distance at a point in time such as now. Now as far as expansion is concerned tests are regularly done to look for variations in the expansion rate. These variations would cause anidtropies. As well as lead to a variating cosmological constant. The cosmological constant however is constant. So the reason we say expansion is accelerating is due to the increase in volume. Similar to this number exercise. Lets assume expansion is 100% of a given volume just for simplicity. So start with two objects one Mpc apart. In one second they are now two Mpc apart, then 4 then 8,16,32,64,128,256 ... there you have accelerating expansion between two objects. However per Mpc it isn't accelerating it is still 100%. Now expansion is far less than 100% it's 70 km/s/Mpc it's still constant per Mpc, but just as the 100% value it Is an exponential seperation between the same two points. Your main problem seems to stem from the time aspects and the possibility of changing conditions. In this we have a unique advantage . In that we can look into the past to look for those variations. We can see how the universe evolves using the objects spotted in a given time period.) Unfortunately we cannot see now everywhere. However unless we can detect or determine a change in dynamics we can safely assume it's the same as it's been for the last several billion years. Or since the CMB. (Taking into consideration temperature dropping since due to an increase in volume). Which the ideal gas laws allow us to predict.) In terms of the major influences to expansion. Baryonic matter such as stars and galaxies influence little. In fact the two major influences is dark matter and the cosmological constant.

That's my point the differences are incorperated into the equations. In the case of the various particle species. The number of photons per era can be determined from understanding the photons properties such as spin. Number of degrees of freedom, entropy density , etc and with use of Bose-Einstein mechanical statistics. Which covers the bosons. The Fermi-Dirac statistics covers the fermions. In each case the properties of the particles in question must be understood. Chapter 3 of Early Universe particle physics covers how to apply those two formulas. In order for them to work however you also have to consider the contributions of other particles at the time period as well as consider chemical reactions. This thermodynamic calculation process took centuries of research to develop. It's methods is well tested. One could however calculate the number of photons using Gibbs law however the method above is more precise. Thermodynamics is a huge and vital field in understanding our universe. The FLRW metric includes the ideal gas laws for that reason. 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 I've already posted the articles describing proper distance commoving distance and explained conformal and commoving time These different distances and time relations is a part of all cosmology based calculations The problem is most people don't realize these details as they seldom look deep enough . The best way to learn is of course thru a course. However barring that it is buying and studying good textbooks. Learning via the internet alone misses too many of the essential details. This is the reason for my site. To help fill those oft missed details As far as textbooks go out of the 30 some odd I own. The easiest to learn cosmology from with under grad calculus is Barbara Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology". The best book on taking the complexity out of the mathematics "Roads to Reality" by Sir Roger Penrose. (The last is non model specific as he covers a wide variety of fields including string theory and ADS/CFT and QFT as well as the classical models

To help explain redshift and expansion as well as what is referred as Universe geometry. Rather than post articles with difficult metrics. I will instead post two articles I wrote with some assistance. Site Articles (Articles written by PF and Site members) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/redshift-and-expansion The above is a quick breakdown of the 3 types of redshift as well as a FAQ article in regards to expansion and BB model. Included is an explaination on why expansion does not occur in gravity influenced areas such as large scale structures. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 of the above article is here. The last article covers universe geometry included is a breakdown of the FLRW metric in terms of distance in the positive, negative and flat geometry (basically energy density relations) in 2d,3d and 4d. I posted the critical density calc in post 18 of this thread. This is the average energy density per cubic meter. Of which only a % is dark energy. Recall I mentioned that dark energy is only 6.0*10^-10 joules per cubic meter. This small amount is locally easily overpowered by gravity as well as the strong force. However this article though more technical is also useful http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052"In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano

Look at the model. The grid points are the particles the grid lines are the geometric regions of influence. These grid lines can be warped and twisted much like in GR. However in his case he employs the Higgs field as one possibility his model is the interactions of energy in virtually empty space. http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2008/09/24/4351586-the-grid-we-live-in Here read this descriptive http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CCoQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.symmetrymagazine.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Flegacy%2Fpdfs%2F200511%2Fcomputing_the_quarks.pdf&rct=j&q=frank%20wilczek%20the%20grid%20pdf&ei=7AKjVJDsMIiuyQStmYCYAw&usg=AFQjCNFVBAqXJCWc1geB8UnWS7V6keFGvg&sig2=Z784zwzvhjhOczBKR5zBag&bvm=bv.82001339,d.aWw It shows the advantages in terms of its computative power However as mentioned this isn't the Ops model so should be a seperate discussion

Think of the term grid model. You still have empty space between the grid connection points and grid lines

There is one significant difference between fields and the model presented. There is space between the particles and fields. This isn't really for the laymen as it's lengthy and technical but it's handy nonetheless http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205: "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

Lol I keep forgetting about that model.

Epochs and eras are chronological points in the universes history where there are significant changes in the dynamics. The major ones after inflation is the radiation dominent era which includes BB inflation and surface of last scattering (CMB). This is followed by the matter dominent era CMB till the universe is roughly 7.3 billion years old. At this time the cosmological constant becomes the dominent influence so we call this era the lambda dominent.

[latex]T=\frac{T_o}{\sqrt{1-\frac {2GM}{Rc^2}}}[/latex] Grr out of practice with the latex formula is here http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/gratim.html#c4 Ah got it was missing a } Google gravitational time dilation equation for more details

Blocky is the wrong word but 4 frames per second is rather slow in video. I'm no video expert but formats I'm familiar with are 24 to 75 frames per second Flickering is the more apropriate word.