Mordred

Sterile Neutrino related research papers Next decade of sterile neutrino studies by Alexey Boyarsky, Dmytro Iakubovskyi, Oleg Ruchayskiy https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4954.pdf Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters Esra Bulbul, Maxim Markevitch, Adam Foster, Randall K. Smith, Michael Loewenstein, Scott W. Randall https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations Revised October 2021 by M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia (YITP, Stony Brook; ICREA, Barcelona; ICC, U. of Barcelona) and M. Yokoyama (UTokyo; Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTokyo). https://pdg.lbl.gov/2022/reviews/rpp2022-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf

science isn't pictures and verbal descriptions. It is making testable predictions using mathematics of cause and effect. At least in any physics related topic. A picture or verbal description doesn't make a testable prediction. a very simple example I have a mass if I accelerate that mass to such and such it will deliver a measurable force. \[f=ma\] it is testable it makes predictions used in nearly every aspect of modern engineering as well as applying in every modern theory in physics.

Tricky as much of the details are in the mathematics however some textbooks are geared to those without a strong background in mathematics. Sean Carroll has a decent free article which does include the relevant math but he does an excellent job stepping one into it. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019 If you don't mind buying textbooks then I recommend Introductory to General relativity by Lewis Ryder. https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-General-Relativity-Lewis-Ryder/dp/1108798373 some online video lectures are also helpful https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-962-general-relativity-spring-2020/video_galleries/video-lectures/

Mass/energy momentum is already accounted for under GR via the stress energy momentum tensor. So that in itself is already part of the existing model of GR.

As I have stated the modelling I'm doing isn't anything new. You evidentially aren't aware but much of the work of a professional Physicist also involves updating previous models and refining data tables and values for terms such as the mass of a proton etc. etc. It isn't just inventing new models. A great deal of the papers on arxiv involve just that. Updating research into existing models and methodologies.

Well gravity is described by spacetime under GR. Gravity only results by non uniform mass/energy distribution. Such as a planet as a common example. The planet has higher mass density than its surroundings. Spacetime is just a geometric description of volume with time as a dimension of length via the interval ct. spacetime itself isn't a fabric or substance but is simply the geometry. When you hear descriptions of curved spacetime. What they are actually describing is the geodesic particle paths that massive and massless particles follow. Take two parallel beams of light. If the beams stay parallel then you have flat spacetime (no gravity) if the beams no longer stay parallel and converge. (get closer) then you have positive curvature. If they move further apart then its negative curvature.

Ok sounds like your trying to describe gravity waves, which occur from any non uniform spinning object. Though you need significant mass to be able to even measure it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Academia is easy to publish in so is Amazon and Research gate. Getting a validated peer review, that's the major Hurdle. Having PH.D's recommend and apply your methodology. That's a major hurdle. Do that then you know for fact not feeling you have something worthwhile.

Anyone can get published, its one of the easiest things to do. Doesn't mean its worth anything

whatever you wish to believe. Makes no difference to me. I can guarantee no one will ever use your model. I've helped examine enough dissertations in cosmology based applications to know that.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Your the only one that feels he has an accurate and usable model.

Ok obviously I'm wasting my time trying to help you improve your model. You obviously believe its the greatest creation of mankind. Even though You haven't shown you can answer accurately any of my concerns with it. After all I do have degrees in Cosmology and particle physics but what do I know. You still haven't even shown me how you handle an extremely important aspect in physics which are vectors. I'm done wasting my time . I have read the same copy past posts of yours dozens of times. They did not then not do not now address a single concern I had with your model. Why you keep believing reposting the same stuff over and over again supplies the answers I have no idea. You should have been able to directly prove your model can conform to Newtons laws of inertia by simply supplying the required derivatives and transformations from your 11 dimensional spacetime to a simple Euclidean frame. After all you so have tensors in your model. Vectors and spinors are fundamental to those tensors.

Here is the related math The first part will show the FLRW metric and the Newton approximation under GR FLRW Metric equations \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] \[H^2=(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho+\frac{\Lambda}{3}-\frac{k}{a^2}\] setting \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] gives the energy stress momentum tensor as \[T^{\mu\nu}=pg^{\mu\nu}+(p=\rho)U^\mu U^\nu)\] \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu\sim\frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)+p(\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=0\] which describes the conservation of energy of a perfect fluid in commoving coordinates describes by the scale factor a with curvature term K=0. the related GR solution the the above will be the Newton approximation. \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\] As the last post I did glitched, rather than redoing all the latex you can see the most common derivative of redshift here. I don't feel like spending another half hour latexing the formulas here to have it glitch on an edit. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr328/Notes/Redshift/redshift.html this is the most commonly used derivatives anyways. You will note no time dilation is involved.

I am and do still use it. Along with C++, and Pascal. Particularly when programming hardware drivers.

Might help to understand that spacetime is a geometric model describing a volume with variations in time. It is those time variations that require time as a dimension. Now with a homogeneous and isotropic (roughly) uniform mass distribution you don't really require this for a flat universe. However you do if the universe is positive or negative curved hence its included. It isn't accurate precisely to think of spacetime itself expanding. It is more accurate to think of the mean average density of mass distribution is decreasing and that distribution is over a greater volume. Does that help ? Edit added aid expansion is literally described via the thermodynamic laws. All calculations involving the expansion history applies those laws via the fluid equations of the FLRW metric.

I can post the equations after work but the FLRW metric derives from the Newton approximation dust solution in commoving coordinates.

As mentioned GR is used, the FLRW metric is simply an accurate simplified derivative of GR.

Higgs again. \[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\] \[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\] 4 effective degrees of freedom doublet complex scalar field. with \[D_\mu\Phi=(\partial_\mu+igW_\mu-\frac{i}{2}\acute{g}B_\mu)\Phi\]\ \[V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)=-\mu^2\Phi^\dagger\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\lambda(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2,\mu^2>0\] in Unitary gauge \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{\lambda}{4}v^4\] \[+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu H \partial^\mu H-\lambda v^2H^2+\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}vH^3+\frac{\lambda}{8}H^4\] \[+\frac{1}{4}(v+(\frac{1}{2}H)^2(W_mu^1W_\mu^2W_\mu^3B_\mu)\begin{pmatrix}g^2&0&0&0\\0&g^2&0&0\\0&0&g^2&g\acute{g}\\0&0&\acute{g}g&\acute{g}^2 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}W^{1\mu}\\W^{2\mu}\\W^{3\mu}\\B^\mu\end{pmatrix}\] Right hand neutrino singlet needs charge conjugate for Majorana mass term (singlet requirement) \[\Psi^c=C\overline{\Psi}^T\] charge conjugate spinor \[C=i\gamma^2\gamma^0\] Chirality \[P_L\Psi_R^C=\Psi_R\] mass term requires \[\overline\Psi^C\Psi\] grants gauge invariance for singlets only. \[\mathcal{L}_{v.mass}=hv_{ij}\overline{I}_{Li}V_{Rj}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\overline{V_{ri}}V_{rj}+h.c\] Higgs expectation value turns the Higgs coupling matrix into the Dirac mass matrix. Majorana mass matrix eugenvalues can be much higher than the Dirac mass. diagonal of \[\Psi^L,\Psi_R\] leads to three light modes v_i with mass matrix \[m_v=-MD^{-1}M_D^T\] MajorN mass in typical GUT \[M\propto10^{15},,GeV\] further details on Majorana mass matrix https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0988.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9702253.pdf

No I don't want your model. I know how Supersymmetry works under SO(MSSM) and SO(32) twister theorem as well as under Pati Salem. You still haven't shown your model works at the rudimentary core of the model. How you define gravity itself. The above applies a scalar field works great for spin zero particles doesn't work well for vector fields ie spin 1/2 spin 1 or spin 2 particles. But then we're still back at how are you handling vectors and spinors . The inherent problem of a scalar field should be obvious. Magnitude only no directional components ie vector being magnitude and direction Example \[\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu\] describes the symmetry of two vectors under the Minkowskii metric Covariance and contravariance you need covectors or in older terminology one forms hopefully you know the dot refers to the inner product of two vectors cross product is needed for spinors

Have you truly done everything you need if so then supply the killing vectors describing your manifolds under your 11 dimensional g_{ij} to prove invariant. Google Cartan killing vectors to get a handle on it. Its amazing you continually resort to copy and paste of the same repeated information yet cannot directly perform the calculation I asked here .

Well your job is to defend and prove your model. My job in essence is to challenge it. If it helps think of it in those terms. If you cannot prove or properly defend your model then it still needs work

Yes but your statements don't comply with it. Gravity is a property of spacetime. Not a fundamental. Your model has it as some fundamental. The onus is up to you to prove it

Uh huh \[f=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] used for planetary bodies aka precursor to Keplers laws. Do you not believe this is applicable go ahead take a uniform distribution apply the above formula in a uniform mass distribution where the sum of forces at any chosen point on a field will equal zero which is what Newtons Shell theorem shows. Your the one that has the non standard definition of gravity prove under the above circumstance gravity will exist and lead to particle production. Every modern theory is reducible to Newtons laws its part of their mathematical proofs. Including GR aka Newton approxination

I stated you did not the standard model shall I cut and paste the relevent section here from I believe page 2 ? try those statements under Newtons shell theorem with g=0.... go ahead give the mathematical proof not blooming claims and verbatim words but the mathematics showing you have gravity in a field mass distribution 100% uniform. Under GR gravity results from the curvature term. Not a homogeneous and isotropic distribution where k=0. Your model indicated gravity as a prime always existing. As some form of matter GEM if I recall. Which in itself is problematic as matter is the fermionic group of SM particles and do not include bosons. Pauli exclusion principle. ask yourself the following how do you have gravity prior to having a mass term to curve spacetime ? Your model states that gravity creates the SM particles if I recall. So where is your initial mass term? if all particles are in thermal equilibrium and indistinguishable from photons ie 10^-43 seconds. Prior to electroweak symmetry breaking. one of my questions you never did answer after you posted the scalar field equations you have is how are you handling vectors and spinors you never did give me an answer. Newtons gravity is not strictly Earth based yeesh, Boy would all the astrophysicists love you for that statement they rarely need GR to handle planetary orbits... You might consider looking under Newton approximation solutions under GR. I had posted the relevant equations on this thread way back at the beginning.

under more modern thought via QFT particles don't exist. Modern enough for you ? good luck with that as you have described too many claims arising from fantasy land in your descriptives. By that I mean untestable and easily falsifiable. One claim for example involved how you described gravity counter to experimental evidence with regards to Newtons shell theorem which in turn falsified your claim of General Correspondance. which literally means any theory must be reducible to known Newtonian physics. Another claim I didn't bother wasting time challenging is you continual references to some Aether. One can readily contest that in regards to M&M type experiments which have advanced to a far greater precision than you will find in any textbook. myself included in that list The best advice I could give you is to literally sit down and study those old school models and theories you find too boring to bother with. If you did in all honesty you would quickly learn to realize just how falsifiable you theory sounds as you presented here