Mordred

I've also posted further articles and info http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/81395-order-and-entropy/page-3#entry838009

Essentially at high enough temperatures and density any reactions that occur quickly decouple. The particles of the model you posted is still present however they cannot be discernable from one another. Basically they all look like a photon/quarks gluon plasma. If you look at the GUT models. They give rough values of when the individual particles decouple with stability. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe You can see the decoupling stages on this page. It's based on the SU(5) standard particle model Different models have variations and differing decoupling phase transitions. There is too many variations to name them all. If you look under my signature there is two articles Particle physics of the Early universe. And the free textbook by Liddle. Both cover what I stated above. They also cover big bang nucleosynthesis 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 Chapter 3 of the second text. http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdfThe Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdfGRAND UNIFIED THEORIES These articles are decent on GUT In the standard model the thermodynamic properties can be accurately described by the vacuum equation of state. This applies at temperatures above the vacuum expectation value. 246 GeV http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) See the scalar modelling formula at bottom of the above page. How the VeV is derived is covered in the material above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value You can see it is based on the Higgs field The materials provided covers all this including VeV. The SO(10) particle model has the same VeV. However their is a seesaw instability around 10^16 GeV. This can lead to a possible explanation for inflation. The SO(10) also predicts dark matter as right hand sterile neutrinos. It was never intended as a GUT model however it is so successful it is a strong candidate. DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 Here is some related articles The lie algebra reference (Algebra of GUT theories) above I found extremely handy to understand the other materials.

Photons is not dark matter regardless of wavelength. The others have covered the main points. We're still unsure what the cause of inflation is. There is well over 70 inflation models. All of them are equally valid. Most of them involve the inflation. Some involve the curvaton. My personal preference is the Higgs inflation models. In essence in the latter there is a high energy metastability in the Higgs boson. This metastability has a seesaw Mexican hat potential. The SO(10) MSM ( minimal standard model) shows how the Higgs field itself may be involved in inflation as a thermodynamic phase transition. http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 Here is an older paper on Higgs inflation. There has been substantial renewed interest due to the discovery of the Higgs. As well as the mass it was discovered to have. More recent papers can be found in this thread. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/

No this company has a single photon emitter and detector. They also manufacture particle entanglement diodes. http://www.toshiba-europe.com/research/crl/qig/entangledled.html The quantum dot detector is the single photon detector. Particles have both pointlike and wave properties. This detector is no exception. The wave like properties affects where on the quantum dot detector the particle strikes. Just as in the double slit experiment. Their is some technical papers on the site. Some free some must be paid for.

Pure energy does not exist on its own. However let's ignore that in the gist of the question. Let's assume the temperature is high enough for all the particles to be in thermal equilibrium. At say 10^-36 seconds. In this state the properties can be described by its thermodynamics only. Photons would be the only particle not in thermal equilibrium. As a 1/2 spin particle with its anti particle the entropy is a total of 2. Now let's move forward till just prior to when atoms can form. Add up all the particle species. Including leptons, fermions, hadrons and bosons etc. Tally up the number of degrees of freedom etc. You will have a higher entropy the more particles are not in thermal equilibrium. If you start adding elements the entropy continues to increase.

First off as Sensei has been telling you the only difference between anti matter and its matter opposite is its charge. Ie color or electromagnetic charge. There is no such thing as anti mass or anti gravity. The positron for example has the EXACT mass as the electron both has positive mass and both is influenced by gravity by the EXACT amount. You can make up whatever sci fi imagination you want. However we can and do make various forms of antimatter and have measured its properties with precision measurements. By the way a quick Google to wiki would tell you what their properties are. Those wiki pages contain reference papers. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiproton Here is an example. Now ask yourself do you see a minus sign in front of the mass value? Of course you don't the reason is that it has the same amount of energy as the proton. The color charge of its quarks is opposite and thus its electromagnetic charge is also opposite. Other than that it is identical to the proton.

Actually Hawkings radiation slowly decreases the mass of the BH. This only occurs when the surrounding temperature is less than the blackbody temperature of the BH. As the mass decreases so does the event horizon. As the event horizon is determined through the Shwartzchild metric which involves the mass. As far as rotation goes this is a complex question.One would expect that conservation of angular momentum would apply and it does so the angular momentum should increase as the BH shrinks. However there is also Berkenstien radiation. This and other forms of particle production and quantum tunnelling is theorized to reduce the angular momentum. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 This article covers what I just stated however it's extremely lengthy and technical it does a great job covering BHs in particular the accretion disk processes

One thing to be clear on is what dimensional analysis really details. Many do not realize it is a geometric math term of influence or measurement. They tend to think of the sci-fi ideas of dimensions. String theory is an excellent example. The dimensions are broken down into interactions including rotational interactions linear interactions etc. Here is a useful article on dimensional analysis. http://www.physics.gatech.edu/~mj38/Fall_2012/2211AB/main/supplements/dimensional_analysis.pdf Ajb Is however us far more the expert on geometric dimension analysis than I My fav textbook though covering this aspect is "Roads to Reality" by Sir Rogers Penrose http://www.amazon.com/The-Road-Reality-Complete-Universe/dp/0679776311

With any theory multiple alternates and variations abound. Highs predicted the need for the Highs. He didn't expect its discovery in his lifetime. Prior to its discovery it was almost a dirty word on forums. Particularly ones I was on. Info on it was extremely hard to find. After its discovery every possible vs varient is being proposed as many strive to fit the Higgs into his or her model. Fairly typical. Often the easiest articles to Google are also the more controversial. One technique I learned to use on info is look for dissertations. The info in them is typically more main stay. SO(10) is no exception, there is numerous variations further research will narrow those down. In the case of the Higgs there is the unconfirmed possibility of different Highs masses that lead to different mass interactions with exotic particles. These are mainly the MSSM minimal super symmetric models. The standard model has just Highs were all familiar with and its antiparticle

Nice article thanks for sharing

Yes as the overall density decreases the temp also decreases as per any ideal gas. Bose-Einstein distribution formula is different than a Bose-Einsein condensate. With most Bosons this occurs around 0.000,000,001 k. 3k is well above this point. Even though it doesn't sound like it.

In the case of charge for neutral particles the antimatter has the same quarks configuration but opposite charge on the quarks. Color charge. Even charged particles the antiparticle is based on its opposite color charge. Take for example proton 2 up and 1 down quarks. The anti proton is 2 anti up and 1 anti down quarks. The electron is elementary and has no substructure so it's anti is opposite electromagnetic charge. The positron. Gravity has nothing to do with matter antimatter.

I should note the phenomena is not just seen in the slit experiments. We have the technology now to send single photon. As well as detect them. Even without the slit the wave particle duality is present. Even with single photons

To add to Swansons reply. Bose-Einstein distribution for bosons. Fermi-Dirac distribution for the fermions. Both are derivitives of the Boltzmann equations

You got your universe temp wrong. It's -454.77 Fahrenheit. Well below freezing. The density of concentrated gas quickly raises the temperature. You can use the ideal gas laws to run the calcs. The big freeze is in the order of close to a 100 billion years into the future. The main problem is that gases will no longer gather enough to form New stars. Stars that are already formed are unaffected except additional supply of new material runs out. So once they exhaust their fuel they will also die. With no new stars to take their place. Now keep in mind galaxy clusters and gravitationally bound large scale clusters are unaffected by expansion. The reason is the cosmological constant aka dark energy per cubic meter is significantly low. Roughly ,[latex]6.62*10^{-10}[/latex] joules per meter cubed. This low energy density is easily overpowered by gravity. It's the volume between Large scale structures that are affected. As the volume increases so does the the total amount of dark energy. However the density itself is constant. The accelerating expansion is due to volume increase.

Glad to see someone willing to learn There is a free textbook that will help http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf Particle physics and inflationary cosmology. By Andrew Linde Study this it will truly open your eyes and reinforce what's been said on this thread That one is a bit on the advanced side. However if you have the funds any of Griffiths textbooks are good intro books http://www.amazon.com/David-J.-Griffiths/e/B000AP7RRE I enjoyed every one of them lol

Think of a particle accelerator. Magnets propel the particle to higher speeds and thus higher kinetic energy as well as higher mass. It's important to remember there is more than one type of mass. Any particle can have a greater mass than its rest mass. Another example is blueshift sa due to a gravity well. The increase in momentum is an increase in kinetic energy. Doesn't matter why or how the particle gains in either frequency or momentum. The same principle applied

Crackpot Ville has a decent population. Don't imagine it's too peaceful though lol It's amazing though we can identify which quarks exist in which particles. We can determine their individual mass enough to know they all have different mass. Yet people still want to believe they don't exist. Especially since the first quarks was discovered in 1964. I Should note quarks is the only elementary particles that are influenced by all 4 forces

Ok Here is something to note. There is a difference between a particles total energy and its rest energy. Total energy is the particles energy at rest. While in motion however the particle has kinetic energy. In particle accelerators the proton is given kinetic energy of a sufficient amount to create the proton and anti proton. The notation [latex]e=m_oc^2[/latex] is the particles rest mass or more accurately its inertial mass. However the particle can also gain kinetic energy.

To to what ACG52 is saying there are particles that are not influenced by the electromagnetic field. No matter how strong that field is. The particle ignores it. Neutrino is one example. However that particle is influenced by gravity. Some particles have no strong force interaction. Others do see wiki on the electron (interactions) Not all particles behave the same way. They have different forces they interact with. Some interact with only 3 of the 4 forces. Dark matter is even worse its only known (confirmed) interaction is gravity http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(physics_and_chemistry) Degrees of freedom is a bit trickier to explain. A large determinant is the particles spin see link above

Thanks for the compliment.

As Strange stated models that are shown to be more accurate than older models do replace the older models all the time. However no model is ever replaced by one that can't supply the mathematics. Ps I asked those questions for a very specific reason. The reason being was I wanted to see how you would answer the question. As it is after all your model. You can't supply the math and quite frankly this thread has been more argument than info. I know you have some familiarity with the mainstream. Certainly enough to know that one of the most common newbie questions is basically what is energy made of or what is the essence of energy. Be grateful. I can think of several forums where this thread would be instantly locked. (they only allow peer reviewed models only) I happen to be a member on them as well. If you think you have a tough audience here you haven't seen anything. now the point of my questions is that there is no way to measure energy directly. This is specifically why science teaches it is never a standalone measurable item. It can only be measured indirectly through its influences. Including gravity.

I'm working from my phone atm but the links I posted throughout this thread already have the metrics your requesting. If you like look on my signature cosmology101. Read particle physics of the Early universe. Also there is a free textbook by Liddle. If you specifically want inflation then you need the vacuum equation of state. Here is why. Particle physics tests on Earth show us that above temp 246 Gev all known particles reach thermal equilibrium. If you apply the ideal gas laws to our observable universe and reverse time. The temperature will easily exceed this value. At this point the equation of state for vacuum becomes important. The different models of inflation also uses this formula but derive modifications to it. As far as the NASA article they state energy like ie via virtual particle production like the inflation. You need to look deeper than multimedia style articles regardless of source. Too often they are written for those with zero knowledge so they keep them as simplified as possible. Often to the point of being inaccurate. As stated The metrics are in the links I posted. However they are also in the textbook I mentioned. Any cosmology model must include thermodynamics. They can't be based just on distance measures. The FLRW metrics and the Einstein field equations include the ideal gas laws. As far as your BH scenario. We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite. We know our observable universe started at a point. But we have zero data on anything outside our observable universe. As such we may never know if the universe is finite or infinite. So how can we say we started at a point? We can only show the observable portion did. We cannot say the rest did. There was one paper that calculated our current curvature. Our universe isn't perfectly flat. Just extremely close to it. If you stopped expsansion right now and using that slight curvature then assumed a finite universe the universe would take 880 billion years to circumnavigate. Now squeeze that volume into a single point. How hot do you get to and how dense. You would easily get into the Tev temperature range. Keep in mind these statements can all be mathematically shown in the materials I listed. http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Here is the FLRW metric in different dimensions ,2d 3d and 4d for flat positive and negative curvature. I wrote this article. References are listed. Here is page 1 the first link is page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Oops it was another thread I had posted the articles in. Anyways this article covers everything I stated above. http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf Should be noted if you work at it you can do neat stuff like calculate the number of photons at a specific temperature such as say the CMB or the number of neutrinos etc See the chapters covering Bose-Einstien and Fermi-Dirac distributions

I'm well aware of that formula and how they measure a particle. That's not my question. The title of your thread and statements of intrinsic energy and essence of energy. Implies energy existing on its own with no particle. Assuming no particle how would you measure energy?. Remember your the one pushing it as being unique and distinquishable. If that is the case you need to be able to measure it directly. So I ask you again How? When we have no means of ditinquishing it directly without measuring its influence on particles etc? Remember everything we know about the forces or energy is a measure of influences. Also remember your after the "essence of energy" how would you identify it? Ie strong or electromagnetic or weak? Again without an indirect influence measurement. Get the idea why science states energy is a measured property of particles? Or a system such as a mechanical system Or for that matter a gravitational system

You have the definitions wrong. Isotropic means no preferred direction. Homogeneous means one location is the same as another or no preffered location. A preferred location is inhomogeneous a preferred direction is anisotropic. The CMB map you posted I can't see completely so I assume your referring to the South pole temp. One must keep in mind the Planck data was questioned on a calibration error . Secondly homogeneous is a scale dependant setting. At a sufficiently large enough of a scale roughly 120 Mpc the scale for homogeneaty is set. Obviously at smaller scales the stars galaxies do not appear homogeneous. The dark flow hypothesis was never found conclusive. Both Bicep2 and the last Planck data found a strong agreement with the cosmological principle and subsequently the FLRW metrics of LCDM. The FLRW metric can only work with a homogeneous and isotropic system. If you follow all the recent papers on arxiv. They still apply the FLRW metric. The only time they don't is usually in argument with LCDM. Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be dowoaded Forgot to mention the temp differents between the blue and red regions is far less than 1 degree celcius. I can't recall the exact figure. The Planck papers cover it though and they can still be downloaded