Mordred

First off the electron and proton cannot be particle pairs for more reasons than just its mass the electron is part of the lepton family its interactions as such does not include the strong force. The electrons anti particle is the positron. The electron is an elementary particle the best research today shows it has no subsystem. It is not made up of quarks. The proton is a member of the hadron family. It is made up of quarks. Specifically 2 up and 1 down. Its interactions is all 4 forces. 99% of its rest mass is the strong force and kinetic energy of the quarks in its make up. your formula also makes little sense as your using the designated symbol for the photon on the left What precisely do you mean by proton potential its rest mass? Or observer potential? Forgot to add the proton has an anti particle the anti proton. Both are generated everyday at LHCs so we know without a doubt they exist. Elfmotat already pointed out the issue of merely changing symbols others have pointed out the other problems in the Humpty thread. Now what constitutes a particle anti particle pair. All properties of a particle and its anti particle MUST be the same except its charge. Charge being its color charge but includes it electromagnetic charge so in the case of the proton the anti proton has two up antiquarks and 1 down antiquark http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_charge In other words the must have the same mass, spin and be part of the same family of particles. As well as have the same interactions. The only similarity between the two is they are both 1/2 spin and have opposite electromagnetic charges.

For the second time SO(10) is NOT a personal model. It is an official particle physics model supported by professional professors in the field of particle physics. Its amazing you don't grasp that even when you can see the professional peer reviewed article covering it in my post above I have no personal model that I am pushing. Get it right and actually take the time to learn the real science today. If you don't believe me google it yourself simply type SO(10) onto your googke search engine

Nature please answer questions in accordance to the textbook or concordance teachings. In other words what would be taught in the classrooms. Or with published peer reviewed support When your answering someone elses questions it is not the time to push personal models. Now to the OP no one knows what caused the asymmetry between matter and antimatter More information can be found by googling the term baryogenesis. There may or may not have been a previous stage called leptogenesis. One of the later Particle physics models feel it may have some bearing on the Higgs instability however there isn't as of yet sufficient evidence to support this claim. the later model is the SO(10) MSM which is essentially the standard model with the standard model Higgs added. The model is still waiting for sufficient supportive evidence from the various LHC,s CERN included It should be noted gamma rays etc create antimatter all the time however as there is more matter the antimatter is short lived. However they are not travelling back in time AJB covered that detail. Here is an article covering antimatter surrounding the Earth http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/08/110810-antimatter-belt-earth-trapped-pamela-space-science/ http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g here is a lengthy review paper on the SO(10) models. There is various sections covering the matter antimatter asymmetry

I'm done as well you have zero prep work yet claim your model replaces years if work of countless professional physicists. You don't even acknowledge any understanding of GUT or the Supersymmetry model. When asked to show your work your response is "wait for it" present your model when you have some work to present. look into the existing models and subsequent terminologies. learn the mathematics behind them they are in fact mostly geometric. till then I'm done wasting my time

Roflmao whoever said the SO(10) MSSM or SO(10)MSM model is mine. I could only wish.lol these are two particle physics models that represent the standard model+The Higgs and supersymmetry+the Higgs. I posted a professional peer review paper on both of them in this thread. Now I know you have no idea what supersymmetry means in physics if you didnt understand the post you qouted. Ajb certainly did as that quote and post was directed to him. I know he is familiar with GUT theories and is familiar with the terminology I used in that reply http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/201 3/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g My apologies I posted the paper on another thread. Anyways the link covers SO(10) both in the standard and supersymmetric model. If you study this article you will realize why your model has nothingvto do with the accepted supetsymmetry (Susy) model and understand the post you quoted which I posted in reply to Ajb

Don't worry I'm not downhearted having the ability to disprove my own model simply means I learned from it. Solving the cosmological problem would have had a huge effect on our scientific society lol I was fully aware of how challenging it is when I started so I am not surprised of the results. However the effort of trying taught me far more than mere study of textbooks.

I did the work on my laptop which recently crashed. The gist of the model is as follows any energy density region higher than a ground state. Ground state being e=1/2hv due to the uncertainty principle. Any energy regions higher than this will spread out until it reaches the ground state. In order to deal with the homogeneaty and isotropy issue and speed of information exchange I used the false to true vacuum process and quantum tunneling. the problem with that however is the amount of energy transferred via tunneling from false vacuum to true vacuum is the difference between the two. So as one region balances to another region the energy exchange changes. Unfortunately the cosmological constant is constant this is the part I couldnt find a solution to. However I havent completely abandonned it. Cutrently I am studying the thermodynamic contributions to the Higgs field itself. The Higgs field is already evenly dispersed so its interactions will contribute to the universes temperature. This strikes me as a more promising possibility than the model I just described for one thing quantum tunneling isnt needed. When your dealing with something the size of the universe. information exchange rate is limitted to c quantum tunneling doesnt allow a faster exchange which is another problem. the rigid rod of relativity is a good analogy. Take a rod 1 light year in length. Move one end of the rod. It will take 1 light year before the other end moves. quantum tunneling doesnt fix this problem I never posted the model as its one I can disprove I come up with an idea to solve a problem in it then research the idea. Then I apply the mathematics with several different related metrics. Those metrics usually point out a problem in the model. Keep in mind I learned a lot from when I first started the model till today. 2 years ago I thought information could be exchanged faster than c via quantum tunneling.

You have to look at it in terms if pressure tske a balloon place it into a vacuum chamber. Then increase the vacuum pressure. The gas inside the balloon will expand outward. Anistropic we have a preferred direction. As objects and gas must move slower than c you would also be inhomogeneous as the universe adjusts to the new volume. The outer regions will inititially adjust first and progressively adjust inward. remember even information is limitted to c. So there is no way the universe could maintain a continous balance to an outside pressure to itself the cosmological constant however develops everywhere equally. As new volume becomes becomes equally available at all locations in accordance to the cosmological principle the metrics of isotropic and homogeneous expansion is preserved. The rate of expansion per unit volume regardless of location is the Hubble constant. Whuch is constant everywhere at a particular time only. It can be different tomorrow or in the past but must be the same everywhere. Now if there was a mechanism of quantum tunneling involved where the arrival destinations were homogeneous and isotropic then an outside pressure influnce could lead to a homogeneous and isotropic model. Side note the problem facing the model idea your referring to is identical to the pronlems that caused me to abandon my natural pressure dispertion model

The key issues have already been answered but lets touch upon the related physics altering issues. we will use the largest quasar group. Lets look at what those quasars influence in terms of the FLRW metric specifically. (which includes the ideal gas laws) first the influence upon gravity of each quasar is a local influence not a global one. Gravities strength quickly reduces the further you move from an object. The gravity drops off fast enough that the individual quasars within that group are not affected by each other. now the influence upon the local energy density. for this we need the equation of state for matter. If you google equation of state cosmology yiu can easily find the wiki page. matter whether its baryonic or non baryonic exerts next to zero influence upon pressure. So this means that the pressure in those regions and the subsequent energy density of those regions is no different than anywhere else. So in terms of universe geometry, curvature, localized temperature and average energy density those regions are still uniform compared to everwhere else. Therefore the ideal gas laws, FLRW metric, Einstein Feild equations, LQC equations etc all still work to the same degree of accuracy. As they all still work to a good approximation (no equation is pefect in the ideal gas laws) then why change them?

Not really I refer to the general layman, some subjects are easier to self learn than others. Susy is simply one of the trickier theories as there is more model variations and contention than the SM models. Though atm some of the SO(10) MSSM variations are giving me headaches as each time I download an article or dissertation on the subject I come across variations in the lie groups. due partly to variations in the number of higglets and subsequence seesaw mechanisms lol but hey Ive only been at it for a couple of months as time allows. Lol Thankfully I bought a couple of textbooks on the lie algebra that include the SO(10) group the SO(10) MSM standard model us far simpler on the Higgs couplings as your only dealing with the 126 Higgs with 4 degrees if freedom including its antiparticle and max 2 mexican hat potentials via 2 max seesaw potentials in the 10^10 to 10^12 TeV range below VeV though the seesaws aren't an issue on the EWSB or chiral symmetry breaking

Sorry I didnt see your post glad you started a new thread on the subject. Here is the thing about homogeneaty. "At a sufficiently large enough scale the universe appears to be the same throughout." what this means in a nutshell is that if one scake does not give the appearance of homogeneaty in measurements. Back on the 80's that scale was roughly 100 Mpc. Some textbooks today still publish that value. One such is Barbera Rydens "Introductory to cosmology" however later challenges such as the Sloan great wall forced that scale to increase. Irregularities can still be present. There is a homogeneaty function calculation that is sometimes used to determine what the scale should be set at. Now Liddle makes an excellent point on this page. "physical structures do not necessarily need ti be homogeneous as long as the laws of physics are the same" (not an exact quote) working from phone atm. What this means is that rates of expansion thermodynamic properties are still homogeneous therefore the FLRW metrics, the Einstein field equations the ideal gas laws, power law spectrums ie CMB etc are all still homogeneous despite the presence of those irregularities. None of the major models such as the LCDM model lose any predictive power as a result. if they do then you can still increase the scale. However last I heard 120Mpc is still sufficient. Could or could not be higher now. hope that helps http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle Quote is the second principle Now considering ghose discoveries we still see recent and up to date articles written in accordance with the cosmological principle by the top physicists in the world today. They are all aware of these discoveries and they still adhere to the cosmological principle. Both the Planck data and the recent Bicep data still find a strong agreement with the cosmological principle. These data sets were both published after those discoveries. So evidentally the cosmological principle is still accurate to a high sigma level that those structures are not a concern (really wish my operating system on my laptop hadn't crashed I had a specific paper on the subject that came out after the last find) it was an arxiv paper and suggested a scale increase to 200 Mpc however I have yet to see any further changes in current articles on the scale perhaps someone else has By the way the Planck south pole anistrophy was found to be a calibration error. Forgot to add the 2012 quasar cluster is at z=1.3 believe thats the right one. Anyways the universe was 4.77 Gly where thats located so the sverage density is naturally higher just a side note it was still considered a challenge by some Side note FYI 2 the rate of expansion was slowing down as this is part of the matter dominant era. The lambda dominant era starts at 7.3 Gly and the rate of expansion starts to accelerate.

Here lets try the tine dependant Schrodinger equation http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger_equation I have no problem with your research I just feel proper terminology is essential to avoid confusion. Particularly in the absense of the mathematics Any forum has readers that never post or register so corrections of tetminology is even more important. We wouldn't want those readers to walk away with the wrong ideas of what a model states. Particularly one as well known but poorly understood as SUSY. Lol call it recursive symmetry I dont think that name is used. Good luck on your research Im still looking for that paper I mentioned earlier as its very similar

I could post and explain formulas all day long. The majority of the formulas do have symmetries. I would be extremely hard presses to find a formula that didn't have some form of symmetry. The question is what kind of symmetry. Your model specifically describes either projective or parity symmetry. If you have multiple reflections such as a crystal lattice it has wallpaper symmetry. Here is a list of types of symmetries glide reflection projective Poincare transformation spacial translation spacial rotation time translation cylindrical spherical Discrete the 3 types specific to particle physics c-symmetry =charge symmetry(particle,antiparticle) p-symmetry (everything appears as if in a mirror) T-symmetry time reversal super symmetry specifically means that every boson must have a superpartner (specifically a fermion that is heavier than its boson partner) As stated nearly every formuls has some form of symmetry. You however seem to think they are all reflective, p-symmetry or wallpaper symmetry and call this by another symmetry name that already has a specific meaning. Then you don't take the time to learn why this confuses those that do know the proper terminology. which is surprising because you could save yourself tons of typing and having to continously explain repetively your posts. Anyways I honestly cannot think of any formula that doesn't have sone form of symmetry. However they are all not reflective nor wallpaper or p-symmetry. Most of the formulas is physics are geometric based most ppl don't realize that detail one of the required mathematics is differential geometry the extra dimensions for string theory sre geometric symmetry influences. Some dimensions describe a rotational dimension others describe a cylindrical infuence. These are specific dimensions where all the interactions of that dimension share the same symmetry. This is a physics forum if any poster comes here and uses incorrect terminology or makes mistakes he should expect and appreciate corrections. After all we all come here to learn this includes posters trying to show his ideas in the specation forum. Too often though they figure they have solved the universe but fail to accept corrections and learn from them. Can you demonstrate a formula with a non linear relation? e=mc^2 has a linear relation socis fairly easy to show a symmetry. I would like to see how your model idea works with a nonlinear relation such as one of the QM wave function equations.

According to these papers its a CMB signal http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0004357&sa=U&ei=2KZSVNbOHpKjyASz5oJg&ved=0CBEQFjAD&sig2=CFXkfa0OHG6zDguP8xJIqg&usg=AFQjCNFUnrJnFcFnqCY_HZehXPSbi36q8g It is the instrinsic CMB fluctuation signal http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://www.itp.kit.edu/~ertl/Hauptseminar/papers/Bernardis_a_flat_universe_from_high_resolution_maps_of_the_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation.pdf&sa=U&ei=Qa5SVK_UDIOwyAThqoLABA&ved=0CA0QFjAB&sig2=Hlg8SYcp3cFoWtlxgdB2tw&usg=AFQjCNE8pG0CQz_jHhQfwP0UPaFhKsYHwg The second paper discusses its significance as its the multipole [latex]l_{peak}[/latex]. Which has applications in determinig the universes density to detrmine our universes geometry. Its also a supportive piece of evidence for inflation and a flat universe. Along with the other signals from the CMB power spectrum and related accoustic oscillations I must admit researching this signal on its importance to cosmology was a good suggestion by the OP. Well done

Your right I have no interest in studying your ideas. I prefer to study the ideas of ppl that can show the metrics behind their models. Anything less is a waste of my time as it is like listening to a 10 year old who played the "Doctor" game give advise on how to perform a heart transplant You recall the one with the bright red nose that went off everytime you touched the sides of the opening PS I know precisely why my model idea doesn't work I performed the various mathematics on it and could not get it to match observational evidence regardless of what theory paradigm I used. LCDM, MOND, ADS/CFT,QFT or string. I tested it numerous theories. None if them would allow me to explain why the cosmological constant remains constant under my models premise but then again no model can answer that question. So my model doesn't improve our understanding of the cosmological constant therefore its useless

No they are not similar or related. If they were their distribution and properties would have similarities. Dark matter isnt nearly as evenly distributed as the cosmological constant aka dark energy. The amount of dark matter is finite throughout the universes evolotion in time where the total amount of dark energy increases as the universe expands. If one caused the other then the rate of change would in one species would reflect upon the rate of change in the other species.

40 years and not once trying to apply mathematics to a model Are you kidding me? Suddenly I don't feel so bad wasting a mere two years trying to get my model idea on dark energy to fit the well proven FLRW metric and related thermodynamic formulas. Just glad I learned my idea won't work. thanks for making me feel better about myself

I would suggest this article on the Higgs its a 2014 review on the Higgs sector. Including numerous related models. http://www.google.ca/url?q=http://pdg.lbl.gov/2013/reviews/rpp2013-rev-higgs-boson.pdf&sa=U&ei=275RVISPJsyuyATPkoL4DA&ved=0CAsQFjAA&sig2=teCad_WamYVBYYFp58KqGA&usg=AFQjCNG-I9NqClw2oId0WdmvIBEHzBc92g Be forwarned though its 198 pages technical

As mentioned before the term symmetry has a specific meaning in physics. When something in physics has symmetry it is invariant invariance means that it does not change due to another tranformation. one good example is the speed of light. It is invariant regardless of observer so the speed of light has symmetry. The same usage of terminology applies in tensor mathematics. Which makes sense as physics requires mathematics. As for the rest I will wait for the model metrics as your writing style and lanq usage is too confusing to me. Nothing personal but everytime I read your posts I get more and more confused as to what your model is describing

Your answers thus far make me wonder how current or accurate your understanding of cosmology is. However that may be just a false reading on my part. A couple of points. Energy does not exist on its own. You had mentioned the universe had energy before particles in one of the posts above. There are over 70 different inflation models all being equally valid to observations. Not all of them suffer the Runaway inflation problem. I still do not understand how your model works The metrics showing how your inflation comes to a halt would help. Again I assume you at least tested your idead via some form of the mathematics and did a comparision to the LCDM concordance model. After all any professional peer reviewed model follows those steps so I honestly hope you didn't simply dream up some ideas, looked for a few supportive articles and then wrote your book without checking if your ideas conform to observational evidence via the applicable mathematics. Does your book include any mathematics to properly explain your model or is it purely verbatum? If my research is correct the book is roughly 140 pages long. Seems a bit short ti me to cover your ideas fully in terms of the metrics etc involved. After all the goal of your book is to teach me the buyer how your model works. In order for me to use your model to make predictions on say expansion those metrics are essential. So please post the metrics on how the universe containing just energy expands rapidly stops then forms particles. and sow how many efolds occur within the time constraints of your model

Dark energy doesnt directly affect the galaxies. Instead dark energy affects the space between large scale structures. no momentum or inertia is imparted to the galaxies so no work is performed on them. think of it this way take a perfect fluid or gas and surround 2 galaxies on all facings and angles (the perfect fluid being extra galactic space with all its contents such as radiation dark matter etc etc. now assume that perfect fluid applies a uniform force due to pressure change in all directions and in equal amounts. As all facings of the galaxy have the same force due to pressure upon it equally at every angle and facing the galaxy does not move. Now do the same for every galaxy and large scale structure every where in every direction and angle equally. The only thing that can change is the volume of space available. This is how dark energy aka the cosmological constant behaves. The Friedmann equations include the ideal gas laws. In cosmology baryonic matter is often referred to as dust. As its overall % is so small compared to dark energy and dark matter. Energy density per volume is akin to pressure via the particles equation of state. (allows us to calculate the amount of pressure a particle species exerts per energy density and volume) Now what I statedis easily explained by the ideal gas laws and the FLRW metrics nothing too mysterious about how the cosmological constant affects expansion in and of itself. The FLRW metric does and excellent job of doing so. However normally as the volume of a gas increases the temperature and pressure decreases. In this case however the temperature and pressure of everything but dark energy decreases. Dark energy remains constant????? This is the mystery facing cosmology Why is dark energy constant? some form of energy must be added to the system to keep it constant. Where is that energy coming from? We still don't have any conclusive answer.

If all stellar objects are being pulled ouward by gravity this would be a universe that has a preferred direction anistropic. Measurements and observations agree that expansion is both homogeneous and isotropic this forms the basis of the cosmolical principle. The big bang isn't an explosion as per se. It is the rapid expansion of space. Inflation itself must follow specific criteria in the timing and number of e folds to match observational evidence. If you wrote a book on the subject I assumevyou compared your model to the LCDM model using either the FLRW metrics or the Einstein fiekd equations. Could you please post your metrics of the V bang model and demonstrate how it predicts an inflation that stops. Then show how come we still measure an expanding universe with your metrics? Or did you write the book without including the related mathematics? The next question is how does your model work with the thermodynamic history and BBN? big bang nucleosynthesis? How did your virtual particles form the standard model of particles we see today? When does those individual particles drop out of thermal equilibrium and in what sequence? Does your model agree with the number and types of particles we see at the CMB? after all the current model can calculate the number of photons at the time of the CMB as well as any other standard model particle. It can also calculate the number of each particle today. Can yours do the same? Numerous models have been discounted as they could not explain the early large scale structure formation this is a problem that MOND suffers from. Having dark matter forming early enough is one of the strongest contenders for early structure formation. You state Blackholes are involved. And do not explain how enough matter cluttered enough to form those BH's instead you state BH's cause star formation? BHs form from massive stars that gave collapsed. So how did your BH's form before stars did? How would virtual particle collide with stationary particles create blackholes? virtual particles are too short lived to be considered a real particle. Anyways thats just a start on the questions I have on your book and model. Depending on the answers I may or may not have more. Actually never mind I googled your book looked over your biography and website as well as your other books. Then checked to see if you have any peer reviewed material on several of the major sites such as arxiv.org. Not interested. I'd rather buy a textbook that teaches concordance cosmology that I can trust. Something along the lines of Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson.

I'll see if I can find a specific paper thats related. The paper discussed the possibility of portions of the Observable universe being reflections of other portions. Not sure if I will be able to locate it. It was published roughly 8 years ago on arxiv and I cannot recall the author. I might still have a copy but my database of articles is over 300 gigs of pdf files. The paper wasnt the holographic principle though http://www.theexamineduniverse.org/ its not the arxiv article but it has some coverage I mentioned merely to show that similar research has occured so you may find supportive material with some searching

This is off topic but those items merely altered the scale and which homogeneous is said to occur or be valid the old value was 100Mpc the new value is 120 Mpc. At 120Mpc they no longer challenge the cosmological principle. However we can argue that in a new thread. As it has nothing to do with this one

The math can often invalidate a model idea once you do the math. Its an essential step to test an idea. I've had numerous model ideas over the years however once I try to perform the math I often find those ideas don't work. Verbatim is well and good to get started but talking about a new model does not develop a model. The math is needed to do that. For example lets stated dark energy is nothing more than a high pressure region moving towards a lower pressure region. Certainly sounds feasible. It makes sense with everyday scenarios. After all you open a compressed container and the gas disperses until it balances with its enviroment. So the universe should do the same right? Once you start to do the math however you get to the FLRW metric and you quickly realize that dark energy doesnt match this idea. first off its constant. Secondly its homogeneous and isotropic. Natural dispersion would have a preffered direction and as the pressure equalizes the rate of dispertion decreases. With the first formula I just invalidated my own model. If more ppl looked at the math they would realize that many of their ideas may or may not work in much the same way