Mordred

Lmao, you can trust one thing. I will stick to my university degrees and the methods that those degrees professional trained me in. You can also trust images and descriptions will never solve any physics related topic. Just a side note virtual particles are never stable...they have insufficient mass/ energy to be stable. That can be mathematically proved using Breit Weigner cross section with regards to decay rate and mean lifetime.

They don't if anything a physicist would take one look and completely ignore it. Just as I did. So am I sounds like a good time to close the thread

No you specifically described stable virtual particles falling up with unstable particles falling down to two layered zones. Where is the misrepresentation when you clearly show that in the image with the statements on the LHS . Obviously the image gives errors you never intended.. Get the point you wouldn't get that with actual math

Let's see virtual particles falling back to consciousness hue . Incorrect that would describe a vector field not a scalar field regardless of what consciousness hue means. Cloud like layer where no layer walls would exist. Dark matter and dark energy in the same layers Nothing correctly described.

A good example if one were to plot the probability function for the quantum uncertainty principle. One wouldn't get a bunch of wavy sinusoidal lines. It would look more like a probability cloud around a vacuum potential baseline One of the most common mistakes is people trying to draw a particle wavefunction is to draw a symmetric sinusoidal waveform. That looks nothing like what a detector would show for a particles wavefunction. Another highly inaccurate visual representation is spacetime drawings. They are never accurate. Hence pictures are useless they are never accurate. Accuracy comes from making plots of test results. Not random drawings.

As I mentioned though you would need a better setup. One device used in testing for CPT is the J-PET detector. https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/9789811213984_0005 Using photons to detect CPT is tricky. As mentioned it would be tricky to separate normal photon interference from CPT effects.

You don't need to be a physicist to understand physics. Nor do you have to be a mathematician. The major formulas aren't that complex. We have plenty of members that have a solid understanding physics without knowing beyond the basic equations. Those equations however are essential when modelling. Diagrams and verbal descriptions is not modelling.

Diagrams are rather pointless, they don't do much good in physics. The exceptions being those directly related to mathematical representations, example Feymann diagrams this is all a diagram is good for. Concepts...... The mathematics is the steps needed to go from concept of imagination to testability with observational evidence. Mere concepts do not good. I always find the avoidance of the mathematics needed surprising in so many that try to do so. The very job of a physicist is to have the tools needed to make testable predictions of cause and effect. The mathematics performs that job. If you ever wish to truly develop your model, your going to need them. I recommend starting with the FLRW metric. Its a good stepping stone to modelling fields.

Your point of view doesn't really account for much. Baryogenesis relates to the question " why is there more positive matter than antimatter in our universe " that is the unsolved question. The issue is we still do not know the reason. Dark matter and dark energy are place holder terms. Regardless of the name both have been confirmed through a wide range of observational tests. This is why your opinion on that is irrelevant.. Observational evidence takes precedence. It is clear you don't understand the major theories with regards to cosmology. Instead of trying to reinvent physics in regards to quantum gravity. Perhaps your time would be better spent through study of GR QM and cosmology. Here this might help better understand cosmology without being too math heavy. 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.

Sterile neutrinos = right hand =anti neutrinos. They are predicted by the standard model but we have yet to detect them. One of the reasons is they have a different cross section with the Higgs interaction via the seesaw mechanism it is predicted to be far more massive.

All the time but the difference is I can validate or invalidate any personal theory of mine with proven mathematical methods. Latest example is proving to myself sterile neutrinos would be insufficient to account for baryogenesis. All done mathematically. The mathematics I used are those in this thread involving to majorana mass terms for sterile neutrinos See the difference in methodology? I can validate or invalidate ant personal theory. I regularly do so.

Verbal declarations and descriptions through poorly used terminology doesn't explain anything. If you apply mathematics you would provide have a far more exacting answer

Doubtful that setup would allow detectability of cpt violation. Photons being symmetric bosons seldom self interfere. You would likely have a better chance with including parametric down conversion of monochromatic light with beam splitters. You will want a limited range of frequency modes.

You still need the mathematics they are essential claiming those equations are in your diagrams isn't proving that they are.

You need to mathematically show you can model the above with well tested physics. Not merely claim such....no relevant math to make testable predictions equals no theory. How would you mathematically define consciousness ?

Here is a few details to consider. The mathematics I provided above show the following. 1) spacetime field 2) spin 2 statistics derived via gravitational waves of the graviton 3) the propagator equation of the graviton field (aka virtual gravitons as virtual particles reside on the internal lines of a Feymann diagram just as does the field propogator.) 4)The GR related details provided is in the weak field limit of GR which may surprise you also work with the Schwartzchild metric. albiet QFT uses the field as an operator where all particles are field excitations whereas virtual particles are field fluctuations. So you have your wavefunctions included. The Langrangian equations include the uncertainty principle, the harmonic oscillator as well the probability functions for all possible paths. So in essence I provide all the essential details needed to describe accurately a graviton using QFT. (granted we don't have a cross section) to derive a mass term. What most people do not realize is physics already has an effective quantum gravity model. (numerous of them). However none of the effective quantum gravity models will function at all scales. They are only effective up to \(10^{19} \) GeV without divergences. This coincides with the singularity condition of a BH as well as the \(10^{-43} \) singularity limit of the BB model. This is often described as a problem with no- renormalization. However we can normalize gravity without divergences up to that point on one loop integrals. 2 loop integrals are still problematic, however its very rare for any field theory to be renormalizable beyond 2 loop in the first place. it is these reasons why quantum gravity is considered an effective field theory as opposed to a fundamental field theory. Unfortunately very few forum members have a chance to understand the equations involved in renormalization. So my posting them wouldn't help explain how the regulator operator is used for renormalization. No fault to any member, one has to have a solid understanding of Feymann integrals and QFT to have a hope in understanding the relevant equation. this is a very basic coverage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renormalization_group

Try getting any indication of a spacetime particle out of your thoughts... Then adopt the terminology spacetime field. Now it's clear your dealing with a mathematical field describing geometry. Keep all forms of particle fields separate and separate into individual fields. Mathematically you can then connect the other fields example christoffel connections. You can individually describe any particle in its own field ie its common to hear of photon field in your case perhaps graviton field.

Well your correct on needing the mathematics. When you do that you will better understand the coordinate aspects.

The spacetime fabric is nothing more than a useful analogy. There is no medium or corpuscular or particle composition to spacetime itself. It is not a rubber sheet or any other form of medium. Expansion is just a reduction in density over a larger volume of the standard model of particles. We simply use commoving coordinates as a convenience to maintain symmetry relations. Virtual particles are off shell particles that have insufficient mass to be a real particle of the specific type ie an offshell photon has less than a quanta of action. All particles add to the blackbody temperature both relativistic and non relativistic. This includes quasi and virtual particles (example zero point energy due to uncertainty principle) So your use of virtual particles would do the same more so if the are relativistic.

With due respect there is no such thing as spacetime particles. That would further imply a Lorentz type eather. M&M type experiments show that as being invalid. Spacetime is just geometry. A set of coordinates. Gravitational waves affect all force and matter fields of the standard model where spacetime is simply the geometric distribution of those fields.

well I just showed you where that is inaccurate. What you are doing amounts to sheer handwaving..... look through the math I posted that is how a spin 2 graviton is theorized to result from a gravitational field. No handwaving the method above can be found in most GR textbooks. time and space is just geometric descriptions time is given dimensionality of length via the interval ct. It is not some substance that can spontaneously create particles. \(t,x,y,z\) are coordinates, coordinates do not create particles nor are they themselves particles Nor can you measure a coordinate you can only mathematically assign a coordinate or coordinate system (geometric assignment)

doesn't work that way you can't simply state too tiny to see or measure and expect it to have effective measurable action. nor can you simply take a geometry and define it as a particle. A graviton by its very descriptive is a mediator of the gravitational field being a spin2 boson. So at the very least you require a coupling constant that couples the stress energy momentum tensor to the gravitational field. in essence in De Donder gauge. \(\mathcal{L}_{int}=ej_\mu a^\mu\) where \(j_\mu\) is the vector current and \(A^\mu\) is the vector potential given by charge e to couple the stress energy momentum tensor to the gravitational field the equations describing the momentum terms is defined as \[\mathcal{L}_{int}=-\frac{1}{2}kT^{\mu\nu}h_{\mu\nu}\] equivalently the field tensor is defined as \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+kh_{\mu\nu}\] where k is defined with Newtons gravitational constant \(k^2=32\pi G\) the energy momentum tensor for the free matter Langrangian becomes \[T_{\mu\nu}=\frac{2}{\sqrt{-g}}\frac{\delta \sqrt{-g\mathcal{L}_{int}}}\delta g^{\mu}{nu}\] where \[\sqrt{-g}=\sqrt{-det g}=exp\frac{1}{2}trlog g\] is the square root of the determinant of the matrix of form \[T_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu\phi^\dagger\partial_\nu\psi+\partial_\nu\psi^\dagger\partial_\mu\psi-g_{mu\nu}(\partial_\mu\psi^\dagger\partial^\mu\psi-m^2\psi^\dagger\psi\] for a scalar field to get the spin connections we invoke spin1/2 to start with (reasons of symmetry under so(3.1)SU(2) double cover) which becomes relevant for the tranverse traceless gauge \[T_{\mu\nu}=\overline{\Psi}[\frac{1}{4}\gamma_\mu i\nabla_\nu+\frac{1}{4}\gamma_\nu i\nabla_\mu-g_{\mu\nu}-g_{\mu\nu}(\nabla-m)]\Psi\] won't bother with the rest of the steps but you will get on derivatives the De Donder gauge given by \[D_{\alpha\beta;\gamma\delta}=\frac{i}{2q^2}\eta_{\alpha\gamma}\eta_{\beta\gamma}+\eta_{\alpha\delta}\eta_{\beta\gamma}-\eta_{\alpha\beta}\eta_{\gamma\delta}\] yields spin polarizations helicity \(+2 :h_{\mu\nu}^2=\epsilon_\mu^+\epsilon_\nu^+\) and \(-2 h_{\mu\nu}^{-2}=\epsilon_\mu^-\epsilon_\nu^-\) so by this the on shell

lets nip this one in the bud straightaway. spacetime t,x,y,z describes a geometry. There is no mass term, no particle degrees of freedom. Nor is there any momentum. Now as you specified quantum gravity this means you either need a state under QM with operators position and momentum or alternately you require field and momentum as per QFT. pray tell where is the spacetime momentum term? Particularly since an Einstein vacuum under GR is 100 percent devoid of all fluctuations and particles both virtual and real.

Assuming this is for college research. You may be able to contact any local research programs on aphantasia. Many organizations are willing to aid students on a given study as it helps raise awareness... If so you may be able to get a hold of other researches that you can find correlations supporting and countering your theorem on a statistical weighted averaging basis. Keep in mind that the steps taken in a given research is often more important than the actual results. An instructor usually considers the steps taken to validate or invalidate a given research as the priori of importance rather than the results. In essence the preliminary steps needed to meet funding proposals for further research. Funding is never given without preliminary research and relevant studies

A strong foundation in mathematics is essential for theoretical physics. QFT for example uses integrals and canonical operators. So you want a good understanding of variations calculus. Conformal methods such a relativity, string theory etc make good use of differential geometry and partial derivatives. Anything involving probability makes good use of statistical mechanics. So a strong math background is essential in any physics theory. A solid good textbook to give you a general idea is Mathematical methods for Physicists by Arfgen https://shop.elsevier.com/books/mathematical-methods-for-physicists/arfken/978-0-12-384654-9?country=CA&format=print&utm_source=google_ads&utm_medium=paid_search&utm_campaign=capmax&gclid=Cj0KCQjw4NujBhC5ARIsAF4Iv6fpYklEnPTD1vVayu0_DYREjaF-Bl7abZopsJTJdLBdnklws7g5NTIaAhTqEALw_wcB&gclsrc=aw.ds