Mordred

tried to delete my last post was in error

no worries I have a few people I can ask on other forums etc, I do know a few cosmologists and professors in the field of particle physics. "The new physics" is largely based on the So(10) seesaw mechanism, there is a few variants. Essentially what it boils down to is that there is evidence of an instability of the Higg's field around 1011 Gev. this gives the potential for different Higg's masses, some of the values is 174 Higg's, 54 Higg's etc though 174 Higg's is more common. Thus far we only found with decent certainty the 246 Higg's. So most of these papers are naturally inconclusive until we can validate the different Higg's masses in the TeV range. So I fully expect a lot of speculation in these papers. The SM has the vacuum expectation value at 246 GeV. However the metastability of the Higg's essentially calls this into question particularly in regards to GUT models.

I have no issue with the technical side of them,I've spent a few years studying particle physics, QFT,QCD,QED,QFD , quantum mechanics,geometrodynamics etc and the classical standard model (my main lack is string based models)( have over 27 textbooks covering the various major physics)not to mention plenty of dissertations covering the SO(10) and MSSM (minimal supersymmetric models) thanks for those papers you posted, the more technical the better its my preference this one article you caught off your first link is the type I'm looking for, haven't looked at the others you linked yet but looks to be a solid enough list that I should have no problem finding other references "Extending Higgs Infation with TeV Scale New Physics" http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.7331v1.pdf hrrm interesting this paper is in agreement with the single seesaw SO(10)SuSy GUT model. in particular the 2*1016 GeV value. Higgs Mass and Gravity Waves in Standard Model False Vacuum Inflation http://arxiv.org/pdf/1405.6943v1.pdf S0(10) papers http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2...11-rev-guts.pdf the first paper agrees with the one by Lawrence R Krauss "From B Modes to Quantum Gravity and Unification of Forces" http://arxiv.org/abs/1404.0634 just what I've been looking for thanks again

yeah I can see where your getting confused, the problem I can see is your having difficulty defining physical constants,dimensionless numbers, Nondimensionalisation, fundamental physical constants and normalized constants (ie normalized to equal 1). -physical constant A physical constant is a physical quantity that is generally believed to be both universal in nature and constant in time. It can be contrasted with a mathematical constant, which is a fixed numerical value, but does not directly involve any physical measurement. -dimensionless number A number representing a physical property, such as a drag coefficient or a measure of stress, that has no scale of physical units (as of time, mass, or distance). -Dimensionless quantity In dimensional analysis, a dimensionless quantity or quantity of dimension one is a quantity without an associated physical dimension. It is thus a "pure" number, and as such always has a dimension of 1. -Nondimensionalization is the partial or full removal of units from an equation involving physical quantities by a suitable substitution of variables. This technique can simplify and parametrize problems where measured units are involved. It is closely related to dimensional analysis. ... -fundamental physical constants In physics, a dimensionless physical constant is a universal physical constant that is dimensionless – having no unit attached, so its numerical value is the same under all possible systems of units. The best known example is the fine structure constant α, with the approximate value 1/137.036. -In probability theory, a normalizing constant is a constant by which an everywhere non-negative function must be multiplied so the area under its graph is 1, e.g., to make it a probability density function or a probability mass function there is no real easy way to explain these, the types of constants used depends on the mathematical method used to analyze a process. lets just say that differential geometry uses various methodologies to simplify highly complex calculations that would otherwise be highly difficult. Normalization of c=1, h=1 etc is a prime example. normalizing units is another. The problem with understanding these takes some getting used to however these are essentially mathematical methodologies and definitions, although somewhat advanced. Differential geometry and calculus is used extensively in any form of physics, I would recommend picking up a couple of textbooks covering each. You will find in most articles C=1, H=1 etc are usually normalized to equal one. the units we assign are meaningless as it is the ratio of influence from a process to that normalized number that is important. After all why work with such a difficult number as the speed of light or planch constant as per units an exact figures when we can assign a value of one to them, then express the ratio of influence of an influence in a mathematical expression? in all honesty though a couple of good textbooks on statistics, differential geometry and calculus is always handy a prime example is all the possible methods of describing gravity.... You would be amazed at the various coordinate systems that can be used. To express this point here is a a good compilation of various methods http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "Lecture Notes on General Relativity" Matthias Blau 928 pages long then you have the various methods of describing "fields" this includes the electromagnetic etc http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields 885 pages science is all about modelling a process via whatever mathematics best describes the process, any method we can use to simplify those calculations is a bonus

umm no sorry, first off regular black holes do not explode if they are not fed, that is also not how black holes lose mass. Lets expand on that, mass loss is done via hawking radiation. if the temperature of the surrounding environment is higher than the black holes, black body temperature then the BH will continue to gain mass. If the surrounding temperature is lower than the BH's blackbody temperature, then the BH will gradually lose mass. This mass loss is an incredibly slow process a black hole of one solar mass would take roughly 2.0*1067 years to evaporate. smaller black holes evaporate faster. As far as information loss/preservation that is still a subject of some debate, so I won't go into that However an explosion from some central location also does not fit observational data. the universe is isotropic and homogeneous, observations agree with this at a high precision. Isotropic=no preferred direction Homogeneous=no preferred location an explosion would have a preferred direction (origin point) and would also be inhomogeneous (higher energy-density towards the origin) expansion shows us that all distances between any galaxies not gravitationally bound are moving apart from each other equally in all directions think of a balloon. here is a few articles on 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 http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies these article I have also posted, including others to learn cosmology according to the concordance LCDM model (hot big bang with cold dark matter and the cosmological constant) I would advise reading the misconceptions sections, then if your truly interested there is also some textbook style article designed to teach cosmology (basic) http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/33180-cosmo-basics/?p=805150 now to my final point, had you read this thread you would have already realized that your idea is wrong please note Delta1212's reply in post #3 please also note the articles I posted in post #7 as far as other forms of universe from black hole models see my post in number 10

I'm looking for other articles, both countering and supporting the metastable Higg's as a possible inflation influence. Some like these tend to add further speculations but that's OK as I'm more interested in the above. I'll filter through the articles as they are recommended. Just doing this for self research, the Higg's field is an area I'm currently studying in particular the seesaw 1 and seesaw 2 models of SO(10). If anyone happens to know a good article covering non SuSy SO(10) I wold also be interested. I have found tons of the SuSy forms but haven't been able to locate the non Susy. Even though numerous of my articles state there is a non SuSy varient. Metastability of the False Vacuum in a Higgs-Seesaw Model of Dark Energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1310.5361 Standard Model Higgs Boson Mass from Borderline Metastability of the Vacuum http://cds.cern.ch/record/496447/files/0104161.pdf Can LHC 2016 Data answer the question: Is Our Universe MetaStable http://www.tony5m17h.net/HiggsMSV.pdf anyways its been hard to find recent and good articles. So any recommendations are welcome

the last quote was from wiki, I should have looked at it closer lol, doesn't a reversible process involve no change in entropy by definition? "In thermodynamics, a reversible process -- or reversible cycle if the process is cyclic -- is a process that can be "reversed" by means of infinitesimal changes in some property of the system without entropy production (i.e. dissipation of energy)" if this definition is correct, how would the second law apply to it? or The process in which the system and surroundings can be restored to the initial state from the final state without producing any changes in the thermodynamics properties of the universe is called a reversible process. In the figure below, let us suppose that the system has undergone a change from state A to state B. If the system can be restored from state B to state A, and there is no change in the universe, then the process is said to be a reversible process. The reversible process can be reversed completely and there is no trace left to show that the system had undergone thermodynamic change. For the system to undergo reversible change, it should occur infinitely slowly due to infinitesimal gradient. During reversible process all the changes in state that occur in the system are in thermodynamic equilibrium with each other. http://www.brighthubengineering.com/thermodynamics/4616-what-are-reversible-and-irreversible-processes/

ah no problem I can agree with that, evidently not the best way to define time lol

your not wrong, entropy can go from disorder to order, however you need to be careful the second law states The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems always evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium, a state with maximum entropy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics the other key factor is entropy is a state function http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_function the second law generally holds try for irreversible processes, not for reversible processes. http://www.physics.ohio-state.edu/p670/textbook/Chap_6.pdf as far as entropy being used in terms of general disorder vs order, I've always found this usage outside of thermodynamics to be misleading and a poor use of entropy

not really its a definition, one could argue that due to relativity, processes have a measurable difference in how long it takes those events to happen. We call this a time dilation, but does it necessarily mean time itself changes, or does it simply mean the relativistic environment influences the processes involved. Sounds like semantics I know, but its an important consideration. Take the atomic clock experiment, did time change or did the energy exchange simply take longer due to the velocity? Time itself if there is such an entity other than being a unit of measure, isn't necessarily the only possible explanation for the difference in decay rates. Its just as plausible that the particles involved in the decay has an increased difficulty interacting with its environment. (probably not but it is possible) The question really boils down to is does time necessarily have to have some hidden property, or can the effects of time dilation be explained via other processes such as rate of energy exchange vs environment? by definition time is nothing more than the measure of rate of change, we simply do not know if time itself is the cause of time dilation, or if its due to other phenomena, ie particle interaction etc. Its certainly simpler to define those changes in rates as a time dilation, that may or may not be the case though. One should never close the book on any theory regardless of how accurate that model is. We can only measure time by known process rates we cannot detect it directly

your argument is based on units of measure, time doesn't care how we measure it or what measuring tool or device we choose to allow us to define the rate of change in a process. time is simply a rate of change of any and all processes, doesn't matter how we measure it (or measure of no change, duration)

time is simply a rate of change, you can have change that involves no change of space, depending on how you measure that change. Ie if you measure the time it takes for water going from solid to liquid, but if you measure the same process from the microscopic level you would see an overall change in volume. Depends on process your measuring. I don't agree with your first statement, it is our perception of time that can change. The universe and time doesn't care how we perceive it. Time is simply a rate of change, I've always been amazed how everyone wants to place some greater meaning to time,( Arrow of time and entropy being one example). Time is a rate of change in any and all possible processes time dilation is simply a different rate of change, of the systems being observed or measured compared to events on your own relative time frame

ok I have to ask which form of mass are we discussing? -inertial mass measures an object's resistance to changes in velocity m=F/a. (the object's acceleration) -Active gravitational mass measures the gravitational force exerted by an object. -Passive gravitational mass measures the gravitational force experienced by an object in a known gravitational field. -Mass-Energy measures the total amount of energy contained within a body, using E=mc² -atomic mass please note I did not mention rest mass eo =moc2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy%E2%80%93momentum_relation I assume were discussing mass-energy which is what myself and Strange have been discussing. your supplying the energy to break the bonds, once the bonds are broken your now measuring the constituent components whose totals will be higher than the previous bound system, however if you measure those constituents prior to allowing them to cool back to a normal state your measuring its total energy. Which isn't the same as measuring the change due to a chemical bond. You need to renormalize the system to get an accurate mass change due to the binding energy "Since all forms of energy exhibit rest mass within systems at "rest" (that is, in systems which have no net momentum), the question of where the missing mass of the binding energy goes, is of interest. The answer is that this mass is lost from a system which is not closed. It transforms to heat, light, higher energy states of the nucleus/atom or other forms of energy, but these types of energy also have mass, and it is necessary that they be removed from the system before its mass may decrease. The "mass deficit" from binding energy is therefore removed mass that corresponds with removed energy, according to Einstein's equation E = mc2. Once the system cools to normal temperatures and returns to ground states in terms of energy levels, there is less mass remaining in the system than there was when it first combined and was at high energy. Mass measurements are almost always made at low temperatures with systems in ground states, and this difference between the mass of a system and the sum of the masses of its isolated parts is called a mass deficit. Thus, if binding energy mass is transformed into heat, the system must be cooled (the heat removed) before the mass-deficit appears in the cooled system. In that case, the removed heat represents exactly the mass "deficit", and the heat itself retains the mass which was lost (from the point of view of the initial system). This mass appears in any other system which absorbs the heat and gains thermal energy.[6]" from the wiki article I posted

It probably reads as this or similar the thing that gets people is the mass of a bound system is lower than its constituent components. binding energy =mass change*c2 the energy loss is used to maintain the bond (binding energy) upon breaking the chemical bond the binding energy is released as heat. However the energy to break the bonds is supplied by the environment. So there is a chemical bond effect on mass, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy

have you tried a fresh battery? part of the circuitry in the cell phone detects the required charging level to full charge. I've seen similar problems being due to the battery itself, some batteries also have circuits in them. Never tore apart the S3 battery though.

lol sorry there isn't an easier way, the 6 parameters of the FLRW metric can be used to calculate numerous parameters. For example just from the temperature of the CMB one can calculate how each particle species contributes to its black-body temperature, (including the density of each particle species) This article takes 3 chapters to do it in. It also has a good review section prior to getting into the thermodynamics, http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis LCDM is an extremely involved model,

there is no way to cover that in a single post, you need to look at full textbooks to fully understand the LCDM models 6 parameters. here is a basic entry level article on universe geometry http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ here is some free textbook style articles http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://cosmo.torun.pl/~boud/Observational_cosmology_-_30h_course.pdf my signature contains more articles that will help your studies the cosmology101 link as well as the the two links on the calculator, (handy for seeing the expansion history). the cosmocalc/start link is the tutorial some of the metrics can be found within the links from that site personally I would recommend buying textbooks Scott Dodelsons "Modern Cosmology" is excellent (particularly in regards to the CMB) also a good introduction is Barbera Ryden's "Introduction to cosmology" this one covers how the FLRW metric works extremely well and how the 6 parameters are derived

here is another example, if you have two ships at relativistic uniform motion ships A's time would appear normal from his frame of reference clock, ie clock on his ship, however if he could see a clock on ship b it would appear to be running slowly and vice versa.

This is incorrect Hawking radiation is not FTL. When two entangled particles are created outside the black holes event horizon, the positive particle escapes, the negative energy particle falls into the the BH thus reducing the black holes mass and energy. Hawking radiation occurs outside the event horizon and is part of the accretion disk. For a full technical detail on the accretion disk as well as other forms of radiation that occurs within it. (including the angular momentum effects the accretion disk has on the BH's spin see this lengthy article. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 :''Black hole Accretion Disk'' -Handy article on accretion disk measurements provides a technical compilation of measurements involving the disk itself. as far as quantum tunneling being faster than the speed of light you might want to read these articles (information does not travel faster than light) http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0708/0708.3889.pdf http://arxiv.org/ftp/quant-ph/papers/0403/0403010.pdf here is a simpler version for those not up on the mathematics http://sitemaker.umich.edu/herbert.winful/files/nimtz_stahlhofen_faster_than_light_speed.pdf

here this site will help, as I stated earlier it is trickle charging and also http://www.electroschematics.com/4983/usb-mobile-charger/ you never specified which cell phone you have but different cell phones have different charging requirements here is a brief list http://sindhu.ece.iisc.ernet.in/systemslab/documents/cellphone_chargers.pdf

the articles I linked cover those questions. Take the expansion history, we know how the universe expands today, reverse that expansion history. As the observable universe decreases in volume, density and temperature increases. We have observational evidence that supports this. the Universe expands, and hence it was smaller at earlier times. The energy was concentrated in a small region of space, and thus the temperature was high. Processes, which can be studied today only with the biggest particle accelerators, happened naturally at that time. here is the chronology of the universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_of_the_Big_Bang http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang http://planck.cf.ac.uk/science/timeline/universe/bigbang

there is one fundamental problem in the first paragraph, an observer who watches the particle near the speed of c will see the time delay, however the particle itself would experience time as normal. This has no effect on the particles energy, as such there is no need or risk of the particle changing its potential. A particles direction also does not affect the particles energy, unless it is traveling into or out of a gravity well. Due to those misunderstandings the rest of your post also makes no sense as your understanding is incorrect. Another problem you don't understand is space is not I repeat not a fabric, it is simply geometric volume, filled with the energy-density contents of the universe. When cosmologists refer to space curvature etc, what they really mean is the curvature of the gravitational energy-density distribution. or the shape of the area of influences due to gravity. It does not mean space is a curved fabric. Same with overall space geometry. Space geometry is the energy-density relations between gravity and the cosmological constant. Flat space means its actual density is close to its critical density. The energy-density relations has a corresponding pressure relation shown by the equations of state. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_%28cosmology%29 Universe geometry is explained here http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry page 2 is here (FLRW metric and distance measures) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ the rest of your write up is also incorrect there is no minimal volume change, space is volume only and as such a change of volume can be any quantity.

cell phone chargers trickle charge, you don't want to charge a cell phone battery too fast as it will reduce its life expectancy.

no I mean we have no means to gather direct measurements prior to the time of the CMB, so any knowledge we have is based on LHC studies and indirect measurements of the CMB anistropies

As mathematics, has briefly described, we do not understand how the universe started, prior to inflation out understanding is based upon our research in high energy particle physics and the related thermodynamics. We know the universe started at a hot dense state, but not the reason behind that beginning. Our knowledge of particle physics show us that one the of the earliest particles to drop out of thermal equilibrium is the photon however the photon needs a mean free path to be detectable. At the earlier stages of the universes beginning that mean free path is to short for us to see today. Google dark ages cosmology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe we will not see prior to the dark ages due to the mean free of photons, our best hope of gathering direct observational information prior to the dark ages lies in the neutrino background. However out ability to detect neutrinos is limited. As such much of the physics prior to inflation is conjectural, we also cannot simulate the temperatures involved in the lab. Though we are making progress with the LHC research. for more information 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