Mordred

good articles, not sure on your question however I do have two other articles you will probably be interested in. This one discusses the risks involved in the Alcubierre drive. One statement in it is the potential to radiate the system you arrive at and left. Quite the eye opener. The attached article also discusses the possibility of the alcubierre drive without exotic materials. http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.5708 Metamaterial-based model of the Alcubierre warp drive.pdf

no problem, I'm still studying these myself but looks like it covers the lie algebra involved including the SO(n) groups. Its been a while lol, O(n) is a sub manifold http://www.math.sunysb.edu/~kirillov/mat552/liegroups.pdf http://www.math.toronto.edu/mein/teaching/lie.pdf Forgot to add I'm to see you enjoy the articles I regularly post. My signature has numerous articles designed to teach basic Cosmology. Took me a long time to find solid and good articles for that purpose. Without pushing any personal view points. Some textbook style articles are also on that link

both wind and solar power both have one significant problem, in that they require huge battery storage. Although technologies in such are improving both methods still have problem supplying enough electricity to meet peak hour demands. Even when both methods are used on the same grid

Actually I had the wrong supporter of the model, It was supposed to be Lawrence R Krauss, Not Leanard Susskind. Not sure why I confused the two. Anyways that correction aside, the universe from nothing model, uses quantum processes, more specifically Heisenburg's uncertainty principle, and virtual particle creation. (there is solid support of virtual particle production, as well as Heisenburg's uncertainty principle) a minimal vacuum still has energy, QM has a slightly different view of the lowest possible vacuum state. Due the the Uncertainty principle the lowest vacuum state is [latex]\frac{1}{2}hv[/latex]. This is part of the Casimiir effect. The Cassimiir effect led up to the development of the zero-energy universe model. In this model the total energy of the universe is zero. Gravity is positive energy, vacuum is negative energy. The zero energy universe and the Heisenburg uncertainty principle is the premise Lawrence R Krauss uses. He has a book on it "Universe from Nothing" Lawrence R Krauss. Scientifically speaking its mathematically plausible, however not proven or disproven. Coincidentally the Universe from nothing model is often referred to as the "The ultimate free lunch" here is some articles on the history of the zero-energy universe, the second article discusses some mathematical problems with the model. Specifically a perfect zero energy universe would lead to a perfect flat model. The model is limited to cartesian coordinates and must use pseudo tensors to describe curvature. However still feasible "Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations." http://arxiv.org/ftp...1/1111.4623.pdf. http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf I should note there is numerous ongoing tests of vacuum energy. The fact that energy is present in what would seemingly be a total vacuum is gaining support. However you also have to watch out for all the crackpottery in articles related to such. There is a huge number of articles of gadgets and patents of people trying to get free energy and devices that purport to such.

sounds quacky to me considering all the measurements of the CMB

Thanks for the attempt I'm more interested in the SU(10) portion, David Griffith didn't cover this group, or at least my copy didn't. No worries though. I found some material on the seesaw mechanism type I and Type II. I already have numerous Higg's articles as well as several Higg's inflationary model articles, and a couple of CERN Higg's thermodynamic papers. Just need to fit the pieces together. Along with the textbooks I do have. My problem is none of my textbooks cover S0(10) I would much rather have a textbook that does, than a scattering of potentially misleading articles

Thats a good way of putting it

hard to find peer reviewed sites for health benefits for eating meat. However here is one site that explains some of the health benefits, processed meat and processed fruits and vegetables are of course no where near as healthy as unprocessed. http://authoritynutrition.com/7-evidence-based-health-reasons-to-eat-meat/ some supportive links http://www.medicaldaily.com/3-benefits-eating-meat-234798 However I should note its also not without its health risks, Red meat being higher in trans fats in processed meats this is often higher. The key is a balanced diet, you can have too much calcium, too much vitamin c, too much iron, etc. Balanced diet is the key. However every persons individual chemistry is slightly different. Thats why its important to have blood tests and find out what your system is lacking, as far as vitamins and nutrients

ah kk,

GR is general relativity Do you perchance have the paper on that study, I would be interested in studying it

Do define gravity as a force, the boson it would need is the graviton. So far we haven not detected the boson. However that does not mean it doesn't exist. We just recently detected the Higg's particles (we may have not found all the predicted Higg's particles yet). The problem is the extreme energies required. The graviton is considered to be one of the hardest to detect and it would take higher energy levels than we can currently achieve. Our understanding of gravity is far from complete in all its workings, we still do not know how to apply gravity to obtain Unification of the forces. Its hoped that quantum gravity, QFT or string theory will be able to one day integrate GR completely into the quantum. However keep in mind GR is a well tested model of gravity, much of what it says it does has yet to be disproved. a line from Introduction to particle Physics by David Griffith describes it well. "In general the heavier the particle you want to produce, the higher the energy of the collision must be" In general the lighter particles are discovered first with the heavier particles coming later..

now that is a good question lol, one of the major hurdles for the MSSM (minimum supersymmetric models) GUT models. Those are covered in the GUTreview. Minimum supersymmetric SU(5) guage symmetry group. If I remember correctly.. in that I have one question is the SU(10) guage symetry group just the Higg's sector? edit never mind that question the Higgs sector is needed to break SU(5) to Su(3)*SU(3)*U(1) which means the Higg's sector needs 12 Goldstone bosons. As SU(5) has 24 guage bosons and standard model has 12. including antiparticles If I understand that's for the SU(5) to work the SU(10) GUT, from what I understand is a strong candidate from this paper, as it does not involve the supersymmetric particles http://www-f1.ijs.si/~ziherl/Greljo12.pdf man I really need a more modern particle physics textbook The two I have from David Griffith just aren't cutting it, any recommendations?

seeing as how zero point energy universe is mentioned lol. here is a historical coverage "Preludes to dark energy:Zero-point energy and vacuum speculations." http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1111/1111.4623.pdf. here is an interesting review on the model and some of the problems associated with describing curvature within the model. arXiv:gr-qc/0605063v3 16 Aug 2009 ON THE ZERO-ENERGY UNIVERSE http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0605063.pdf both articles are an interesting read

Not sure I've ever heard it described in quite this manner, however your descriptive bears some similarities to the regions in Yukawa couplings. Or at least thats what it reminds me of from the way you described it page 98, GUTreview.pdf. Yukawa couplings has 4 regions. edit actually scholarpedia has a similar descriptive, "They predict that the (distance-dependent) interaction strengths of the known interactions should become equal at short distance scales, lead to partially successful relations between quark and lepton masses, may be associated with small neutrino masses, may have implications for cosmology, and may lead to new gauge interactions that survive to low energies." http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Grand_unification

might help if you reference the original thread http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/83302-a-few-questions/ question 5 "Why do i wake up before something happens?E.g. a poster falling down. I don't know it is going to happen but there i am, suddenly awake lying there wondering why i am awake and then 5 seconds later, the poster falls down"?

I've never come across any confirmed direct measurements either.

that would be cool to watch in a movie lol

this should be 3 posts, not one. If the Earth were to stop rotating, would result in serious climate change, one side of the planet would get extremely hot, while the other side extremely cold. Life would either have to adapt or perish. A black hole is called such as the gravity is so great that light cannot escape it google Schwartzchild metric. Infalling material becomes high energy particles (Radiation) and circle the event horizon, A % makes it beyond the event horizon, the rest eventually escapes via the accretion jets. However any in-falling material beyond the EH is essentially lost as we cannot determine what happens beyond the event horizon. Light cannot escape remember. Now as for cutting through the Earth, the extreme heat alone makes this impractical. Its far safer to simply fly around the globe. So I wouldn't expect any serious research into this endeavor

well that definitely helps me realize what your doing is higher than my current QFT, I'm still in studies myself on QFT.

seeing if I can complete the latex to make it easier to read edit still didn't help me, recognize the forms well enough to see what your doing perhaps you might get better help if they are all properly converted.

Yeah hypervalent_iodine already explained that in a private PM when I questioned him for clarity, interesting article on fullerines though. Thanks for that info

I have no idea on the Ligo results however BICEP2 announced it found gravity waves in the CMB. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/gravity-waves-cmb-b-mode-polarization/ technical papers can be found here http://bicepkeck.org/ here is the arxiv paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.3985 and details on the 3 year dataset http://arxiv.org/abs/1403.4302

After reading "Roads to reality" by Penrose, just completed reading the 1200+ pages I would have to agree, however Penrose doesn't hold much hope in any existing model from what I can tell lol. Even his Twistor model he has his doubts though he supports it over others. At least that's the impression I got from it. Seemed to me he is holding out for some new radical take.I have to respect one thing though. He encourages others to think outside the box but in order to do that you need to understand whats in the box. edit I should also give him credit his coverage of the geometry aspects of all the dominant theories was well done. As such I highly recommend anyone reading it, its a real eye opener, his viewpoints aside

ah gotcha well both models have their successes, and their problems so comparing the two is a matter of personal opinion. so rather than state my opinion seeing as I follow neither lol, I prefer QFT even though it also has its own problems. I'll simply supply a review of each. I'm also not versed enough in either models yet to formulate an opinion on either. Even though I have numerous articles and textbooks covering each, I haven't completed my studies of these two models. Loop quantum gravity review http://arxiv.org/pdf/1001.4188.pdf string theory review http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep--th/9905111.pdf If your interested in learning either ADS/CFT or LQC let me know and I can supply some good articles designed to teach each. (hope your differential geometry is up to par though) that includes QFT articles mind you I also follow the policy of study everything, you always learn something in light of that policy you might find this 885 page article handy as it covers all 3 and others http://arxiv.org/abs/hepth/9912205 : "Fields" - A free lengthy technical training manual on classical and quantum fields

good idea however measurements rule it out. If you had an influence of pressure, as you say outside our universe then the motion of galaxies would be moving outward. In other words have a preferred direction. Our universe does not have a preferred direction or location. Now there is also no outside our universe. Unless you count the observable universe only. We do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Here is some articles I would like you to especially read the balloon analogy here is two terms to remember in cosmology Homogeneous- no preferred location ie a center Isotropic - no preferred direction expansion measurements follow these rules galaxies move apart from each other equally in all directions, and the angles between any 3 galaxies do not change 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://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the