Mordred

As GUT is part of the discussion here is a newer GUT model http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1001 Part of what I mentioned previously The links you had posted in one of your earlier threads represent the SU(5) MSSM model much has changed since those links to the webpages were written. There is an SO(10) suppersymmetric model however it suffers the same problem as the SU(5) supersymmetric model. (exotic particles that has never been found) however the SO(10) MSSM does offer a possible answer as to why the supersymmetric particles are heavier than their partners. Which SU(5) as far as I know failed to do. As far as your holographic references as well as others I keep thinking of ADS/CFT correspondance which is probably not what you are referring to. Been extremely difficult to narrow down your line of research and model ideas. Hopefully you can provide some clarity as many of the concepts you posted exist in numerous unrelated models etc. However I can't even be sure on that despite several re readings. Forgot to add there is numerous variants on both SO(10) MSM and SO(10) MSSM MSM minimal standard model MSSM minimal supersymmetric standard model

sorry but without seeing the actual model and lie algebra and corresponding mathematics involved in any new model regardless of subject I do not invest my valuable time into it. After all unless I see real work and understanding by the poster in question I have no faith in their willingness to prove their understanding of current models and show how their models work better than the numerous ones already out there. I've studied well over 20 different GUT models in extensive detail. They all have their pros and cons. My personal favorite is the SO(10) MSM model. As it doesn't introduce any exotic particles, uses a single seesaw mechanism and has only the 123 Higgs and its anti particle form. Coincidentally it may also explain dark matter, inflation and dark energy. I have posted the related papers in other threads. I have a few impressive dissertations on the various SO(10) models. Thus far I have yet to read anything in any of your posts that has convinced me that your ideas will improve upon the existing models. Please show us an actual model or at the very least the work you have done on it. Prove to us your understanding. Once you can do that then you will have ppl willing to help. Until you can do so then we simply cannot offer assistance as we have nothing to work from to understand your model ideas. We have no way of knowing what your knowledge level is either. The 3 questions I posted any first semester student in particle physics can answer they represented an entry level of understanding. Is your model SO(10) MSSM or Su(5)MSSM? or some other breed? We have no way of knowing as you have shown zero work

Nice demo thanks

Why not look into the SO(10) supersymmetric particles? This group includes the Higgs bosons with its supersymmetric partner. The research that is ongoing in the Higgs is the search for other Higgs bosons and the high energy metastability for the seesaw mechanism. As far as GUT even the standard model can unite the 3 forces any of the GUT models can. The problem is gravity itself and every model suffers this problem. The minimal standard for any GUT model is the other 3 forces. There are numerous GUT models both standard and supersymmetric that accomplish that. I'm with you on this its Ok to post new ideas but I wish ppl would at least study the research already out there and show the maths of their new theory instead of a bunch of technical sounding words thrown together to make their ideas sound impressive. No model works without the math anything less than that is just speculative talk Perhaps the OP can show his knowledge. Or at least his understanding of particle physics by answering 3 questions. Which lie algebra group specifically covers the supersymmetric particles? Which lie algrebra groups covers the standard model particles? Is [latex]S_3[/latex] Abelion or non abelion? If you can't answer those 3 questions then I recommend buying Griffiths "Introductory to particle physics" and studying it before you try to invent a new model The last question is there as the answer cannot be googled where the first two can be. Also the answer to the last question isn't in Griffiths book. It requires an actual understanding of lie algebra

roughly 6.62*10-10 joules per m3 roughly if you prefer different articles gives similar values there is some minor discrepancies depending on what value you use for Ho actually I miscalculated it will be closer to 5 protons per m3

in a sense the universe is still inflating just at a slower rate the process that caused inflation and is causing expansion may or may not be one and the same. If you didn't understand the inflation models models I posted then how can you say most models have a finite inflation? They do in the sense of a slow roll exit from inflation, that was one of the key problems with false vacuum inflation (Allen Guth's original inflation) once inflation starts there was no way to stop it, some of the earlier inflation models still suffer this problem including chaotic eternal inflation, Google Runaway inflation for more details. There is no reason to believe the universe will become static in the future a static universe is one that will become eternal and requires a highly fine tuned set of conditions which is inherently unstable, The critical density must be exactly zero with no possible fluctuation, even the smallest fluctuation will cause a further expansion or a collapse. The wikidot link in my signature has numerous articles you might read over. However this may interest you http://arxiv.org/abs/1303.3787 Encyclopedia Inflationaris there is over 70 reviewed and examined models for inflation, good luck with yours, there is very specific standards to obtain to make a workable inflation model the standards are in the above article. (in order to match observational evidence)

good info Sensei thanks most textbooks just cover the expansion solution to Olbers paradox

If your referring to Olbers paradox (which you probably are) the universe is not flooded with light from the stars as both the steady state model and the inflation models are expanding. The steady state universe is an expanding universe. The difference is that new matter forms causing the universe to expand. Where in inflation the number of particles is constant Working from phone so can't see the posters stats lol

Think about it the Earth rotates so the side facing the sun is daytime the side away from the sun is night. If your on a spaceship there is no night and day. The universe does not have a day or night.

Our understanding of particle physics and thermodynamics predicted the existence of the CMB. The CMB is a result of particles dropping out of thermal equilibrium from higher temperatures when the universe cooled down enough. If the temperature is too high stable reactions cannot occur so heavier elements cannot form with stability. This is what thermal equilibrium means. At high enough temperatures quarks and gluons cannot even combine to form Hydrogen. The CMB is a direct result of particles being able to combine with stability to form hydrogen and lithium. Keep in mind Big Bang nucleosynthesis predicted the CMB long before we discovered it http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf the process is described in this textbook style article

The universe doesn't go dark at night. The facing of the Earth to the sun gives us night and day

Correct the steady state universe has no temperature variations new matter forms as the universe expands. So the average energy density is constant. This is what Hoyle originally proposed to counter the big bang model. The CMB is a result of a hot dense past. In the steady state universe there is no hot dense past. Conditions in the past would be identical to conditions now and in the future. Hence the name "Steady state" The ideal gas laws are fundamental in cosmology. Every model must use the ideal gas laws. There is a big difference between the steady state universe and chaotic eternal inflation. The two models are direct opposites. Chaotic eternal inflation is still a valid model it is among over 70 other competing inflation models that are all equally valid. Including Higgs inflation, slow roll approximation, Natural inflation, Hill inflation etc. All inflationary models is not a "Steady State Universe" The steady state universe has been proven wrong in favor of inflation due to observational evidence.

the very fact that there is a CMB is proof of a hot dense past. The measured elements hydrogen and lithium with few other elements show that the universe came from a much hotter and denser state. More complex elements could not form as the temperatures were too high. The condition is called thermal equilibrium. We have mountains of data from WMAP and PLANCK that support this with direct measurements. They did measure the temperature variations when they mapped the CMB. If direct measurements isn't proof then what is? the paper you just posted has nothing to do with the steady state universe. The last paper is in support of chaotic eternal inflation. Which is a big bang theory model. The steady state universe always existed no big bang. Please take the time to at least understand the models your supporting. In the steady state universe there is no big bang nor can there be a CMB. That is what steady state means... In the last paper you posted Guth states the number of particles at [latex]10^90[/latex]. Hoyles steady state model requires new matter to form as the universe expands.

There is one key factor you missed. In the steady state universe the temperature is constant. The matter creation maintains the same energy density so according to the ideal gas laws the eternal steady state universe would not show a change in temperature. This is one of the why the CMB disproved the steady state model. The temperature of the CMB is roughly 3000 kelvin today it 2.73 kelvin which shows that the average energy density is decreasing due to expansion with a finite amount of mass energy per volume.

The term bending of spacetime is misleading. It does not mean spacetime is a material or fabric. It is in fact a mathematical descriptive of the geometric influence if spacetime. Space being simply volume filled with the energy matter contents of the universe. The term spacetime is in fact a mathematical term whose meaning us "any metric that adds the time component to space" The images you see with bending sheets etc are merely visualization aids. When you use the critical density formula you can calculate the average energy mass density to volume. Thus will give a value of roughly 1 photon per cubic meter. Including dark energy and virtual particle production. So indeed there is a whole lot of empty volume we call space. The warping twisting stretching space terms are all misleading and one if the most common mistakes is thinking that space itself is a fabric or substance. GR does not teach this it tells us that the sphere of influence that gravity has on particles is in a bent curvature for that matter only fermions make up matter the force carriers bosons such as the hypothetical graviton is not a form of matter this is where the real question of whether gravity is a force comes into play we cannotvas of yet detect the graviton however we do detect the other 3 force carriers. However this doesntvmeancthe graviton does not exist. We simply cannot produce high enough energy in particle accelerators to create gravitons.

Would probably throw LCDM out the window lol

I've never encountered any to be honest and my database of articles I have is extensive. At least not that I've encountered in a homogeneous and isotropic based model. Still trying to learn ADS/CFT though. What I understand of LQC has a constant K though I am by no means an expert in the other metrics

Not sure I understand what you mean. In the FLRW metric k is the intrinsic curvature constant. This constant determines whether the universe is flat positive/negative curved. The value k is constant in time and location in a homogeneous and isotropic universe. The FLRW metrics is 100% compatible with the Einstein field equations. Even LQC has a constant curvature parameter. LCDM is based on more than just the FLRW metrics the model uses both EFE and FLRW as well as the ideal gas laws. As the curvature affects lightpaths this is critical to get accurate a varying k would result in variations in our lightpaths to date none have been found mind you we cannot see beyond the dark ages prior to the CMB, however any observational evidence we have shows the observable universe as having the same curvature constant. Based on that and using the ideal gas laws as well our knowledge of particle physics and energy conservation laws we can develop the metrics to describe the universes evolution prior to the dark ages. Though there is obviosly contention this did allow us to develop the big bang nucleosynthesis that we later measured and found to be accurate in the predicted %s of hydrogen lithium etc. My signature has numerous articles in the curvature constant including several textbook styles. Overview to cosmology goes into detail on k however so does the other materials including the free textbook from Liddle. feel free to browse it. To date after years of reading cosmology based papers I honestly cannot recall any papers or metrics that has a varying intrinsic curvature constant. If I recall correctly outside of the textbooks I own "General Relativity" by Mathius Blau also states that an open universe will remain open and vise versa but I would have to re read the 998 pages to find the statement. Its also in my signature

Universe geometry is constant a closed universe is always closed same with an open universe

Think of it in terms of pressure differtial. Pressure per volume is the same as energy density per volume. The higher the energy density difference between two regions the greater the flow. A good example is a sailboat. The higher the energy density is on one side of the sail as opposed to the other side of the sail the greater the forward movement is. In this case as the universe expands there is less and less pressure difference between your dark energy region and your bubble universes. One aspect many people tend to overlook is that one of the key pieces of evidence that the universe is expanding isn't just ditance measurements. A major piece of evidence is the thermodynamic history of the universe. The ideal gas laws is a part of the FLRW metrics as well. A good book covering this is Modern Cosmology by Scott Dodelson chapters 3 to 5. However this article also covers this arena in the same metrics including the particle physics aspects of big bang nucleosynthesis (Bose Einstein and Fermi Dirac equations included) http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf

Singularity in this case is when we can no longer describe the physics involved. Its not the same as a point like singularity. We do not know the size of the universe at the beginning we only know our Observable portion started at a point. Just an FYI

Lol no problem once you try to use the metrics or the math. Many of the ideas can be discounted I took the time to learn them. In this case I found my model didnt work with the FLRW metrics. Ialso tried adapting the Bose-Einstein distrributions and the Fermi-Dirac equations but found I could not get them to work with the observational thermodynamic history of the universe with my model

The cosmological constant has been a subject I've spent years trying to solve. In terms of pressure its easy to relate to. However the problem arises from why is it constant? And how to account for a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. My own model ideas to this day still do not work due to those two reasons. If you look at your diagram you will see that neither will your idea. A lower energy density region outside a higher energy density region will automatically lead to a preferred outward direction. This will not work with observational evidence. Much the same way my own model does not work. Which is essentially a natural dispersion of a high energy density to a lower density state. In this regards our two ideas are the same. However as stated this does not work with observational evidence nor does it work with the FLRW metrics. Unless conclusive evidence shows an outward preferred direction then neither your model nor mine will work. The same problem occurs in the rotating universe models. Or the universe from a blackhole or inside a BH. Many models have been discounted from not being homogeneous and isotropic. This is what observational evidence supports. So unless you can develop the metrics to show how your model can maintain those two conditions your model will not match observational evidence. To this day I still have nit published my ideas on the cosmological constant for the reasons I have just state. I can still disprove my own model due to not being homogeneous and isotropic nor can I keep the cosmological constant as a constant. A higher energy density region that expands will naturally decrease in pressure. However in the case of dark energy this does not occur. As far as the evidence shows it is in fact constant in time as well as location. Your model will suffer the same problems as the dark energy outer regions are by default a lower energy density region so as your bubble universes expands the average pressure will decrease leading to a slower expansion rate instead of an accelerating expansion rate.

I'll have to look them up could be intersting reading

True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation the key note is the cosmological constant drives expansion from within our universe. Not from outside our universe the behavior of expansion would have a preferred direction if the cause was external to our universe.