Mordred

Ah yeah right he did specify stable

For that matter the neutron is heavier than the proton

The definition is decent on inertia. However not all particles is a form of matter. Only fermions form matter. Bosons do not you can have an infinite number of bosons occupy the same space. Only one fermion can occupy the same volume How would you measure intrinsic energy without measuring its influence on a particle? Ever thought of changing intrinsic energy to potential energy?

Join the club lol You still have not shown how to derive observer potential

Fairly close without going into too much detail. There is a ton on the subject on WWW. Including some protection methods though vs nuclear insufficient

Pick up differential geometry A good text on QM is Griffiths "Introductory in Quantum Mechanics" However a strong math skill is needed in QM along with the other recommendations

Correct though not it's set intention it also applies to other objects beyond the Hubbles sphere As side note I was one of the authors proof readers for his his dissertation his knowledge and skills are far beyond me now. His current research includes the CMB in regards to inflation They can be found on arxiv.org So if anyone has comments or recommendations on the article I can contact the author Keep in mind there is a difference between Hubbles sphere and the cosmological event horizon. Hubbles sphere is the age of the universe * c The older FLRW metrics thought light could not reach us beyond the Hubbles sphere. Some older textbooks on the market today still apply those related metrics. If the metrics does not include the cosmological constant it is out of date. We can see objects beyond the Hubbles sphere for the reasons covered in that article which targets the common forum misconceptions regarding expansion. The author is a member on another forum which is where I met him. He wrote the article based on the common forum misconceptions

Here is one article you will find handy on the Highs as well as the standard and supersymmetric model. This paper specifically covers the SO(10) model. However it is basically the standard model + the Highs sector. To truly learn particle physics though you need to get a good textbook. Probably the best I have come across for the novice is Griffiths Introductory to Cosmology. Keep in mind you will also need QM,QCD and QED. The quarks sector is covered in QCD. QED deals with the electroweak sector. Griffith has a book covering each of these however stops prior to the Highs itself so he doesn't cover the SO(10) itself. Spin is angular momentum but not to be confused with a spinning top think of it this way all particle physics interactions are essentially strength and geometry. The majority of the formulas are geometric in nature. A good text on differential geometry is crucial. "Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose greatly simplifies the complex http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/#entry811661%22%5Dhttp://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83765-higgs-field-thermodynamic-research-cmb-and-now/%23entry811661 Need to turn off auto correct or add Higgs to my dictionary lol How particles decay must follow specific rules Conservation of Lepton Conservation of flavor Conservation of spin Conservation of color Conservation of isospin These form the basis of the Eightfold wayen the meson nonet and the Lepton octect or nonet Your model must conform to those rules http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/84470-2nd3rd-generation-atoms/#entry817008 This thread has a brief descriptive set of wiki links as well as a brief descriptive of particle generation You can find some good articles on this page of my website in signature this will take you to the page under development http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/articles

You really have no clue do you. Spacetime curvature is a distibution curve. What is it distributing? It is distributing energy mass. In other words it is exactly the same as a pressure distribution. If you thought about the term stress energy tenser and understood differential geometry you would realize that. A higher energy density per volume is the exact same as a higher pressure. With the correct equation of state applied. Pressure exerts force. Your whole argument is meaningless. As spacetime cuvature is a pressure/energy density distribution. Just like inertia is resistance to momentum. Inertia is a measure of mass mass ie inertial mass is a property whose only influence is solely inertia. It is a resistance to changes in momentum energy is a property of particles it does NOT have its own unique and distinquishable property or essence. You sit here and preach to us your model ideas but have spent 40 years of being told "Do the math" and you never bothered. you don't even fully understand the terminology as the terminology reflects the mathematics. Learn to listen learn to learn but stop preaching to those that have done the work to learn the terminology and mathematics. The worse insult is that you wrote a book on your ideas which will only cause trouble for any student who buys your book. I provided the mainstream formulas and provided a peer reviewed professional article in support of my statement. I will listen to those professionals over your misguided opinion. Especially due to the fact you have zero msthematical support As far as the article goes I found it better written that Walds General Relativity but for the new student I recommend Principles of General Relativity by Bapowell who sticks strictly to Minkowskii. He also has years of experience answering forum posts. On a different forum. As far as the self centered comment I only listen to those that "Does the math" Am I happy with the current mathematics and terminology? Absolutely. The metrics make extremely accurate predictions when used in the right applications. Newtons force laws work in most peoples everyday existance. All metrics are good approximations at best. Including GR

The LCDM model says nothing about energy existing on its own. Study the FLRW metrics its basically GR and the ideal gas laws. All forms of energy interactd via particles including inflation the particle is the inflaton. the cosmological constant doesn't have a particle assigned yet so the consensus is via virtual particle production. Never in any peer reviewed model is energy on its own. The reason I asked for metrics on how inflation can come to a stop then start again is that no inflation model has that specific a characteristic. Inflation in most models comes slowly to a smaller rate. Our current expansion may or may not be inflation still progressing. With 70+ models on inflation there can easily be tons I'm not fully up on. However none I am aware of stop then start I stated this in another thread a model without the math isn't a model its only an idea or conjecture.

Yes I read that paper its called the 5d planck star if you search my posts I posted it once. Its at 5d star that explodes in a 4d fashion. That was to deal with the cosmological principle. If you want to use that idea you will need to work the math of ADS/CFT corrrespondance into your model. A model without the math isn't a model its a conjecture. If you want I have a few handy guides to learn ADS/CFT but I also recommend buying Roads to Reality by Sir Roger Penrose as the term dimensions itself is misleading.

Its excellent work so far but... I have to nention the top quark model has been ruled out when they discovered and confirmed the Higgs boson. They even have enough data now to narrow down the mass of the various quarks. Enough to show that they have different mass. Using that data they have made progress in showing precisely how the neutron and proton has the mass it does. Including the influence of the strong and electroweak force affects the mass. However the work above is still excellent work within the premise of the model itself Here is the paper on the work on neutron and proton mass. The paper includes the quarks. If if search the reference papers you can get the specific research papers on the quarks http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088 I wasn't studying particle physics prior to the Higgs discovery however If my memory serves correctly my impression of the top quark model from forum duscussions was a strong model

You still don't seem to understand the cosmological principle. Confirmed measurements show us that the big bang is not the result of an explosion. An explosion has a preferred direction and origin. The universe is homogeneous and isotropic. No preferred direction or location. Next point is nothing and that means nothing not even information can travel faster than c. So nothing not even Hawking radiation escapes a BH. Hawking radiation occurs outside the EH not inside the EH. The negative particle falls into the BH the positive particle escapes. All of this has been mentioned in the other thread

All forms of energy or energy density regardless of type or source in sufficient amounts can exert gravity. That is according to the Einstien field equations. I have zero interest in your personal model. I will continue to use GR and when its still accurate to a good approximation such as Euclidean non relativistic Newtonian.

Yes an EMP can fry electronics. The page you linked includes different sources of EMP including man made. EMP causes induced voltages see induction. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction for example a lightning bolt can fry nearby electronics even if it doesn't hit them through electromagnetic induction

Actually according to GR light or enough photons can in fact generate gravity. Even gravity waves can generate gravity. This is because GR ties energy-density and momentum to gravity unlike Newtonian gravity which is due to mass. [latex]e=\sqrt{p^2c^2+(m_oc^2)^2}[/latex] Set [latex]m_o=0[/latex] Momentum [latex]p=\frac{h\lambda}{c}[/latex] This ties into the stress energy momentum tensor of the Einstein field equations This lengthy textbook covers the above he includes a section on cosmology applications of GR http://www.blau.itp.unibe.ch/newlecturesGR.pdf "lecture notes on General Relativity" by Mathius Blau. Extremely good book especially since its free. 900+ pages

You might find this paper interesting. Calculations of the mass of neutron and proton. Its rather detailed I'm still studying it myself http://arxiv.org/abs/1406.4088

Deleted last post not appropriate for topic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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