Mordred

The Schrodinger equation gives a probability wavefunction one that shows the particles dynamics over time. It will work regardless if you treat the particle as a particle or as a state. The thing is on a fundamental level one also has to keep in mind that a field is simply a set of values in a geometric descriptive. A field in essence is merely a descriptive. However it could be argued that the same applies to a particle. A common bad practice is to think of particles as energy packets. The reason is the very definition of energy is the Property of an object or state to perform work. Particles also have no corpuscular (material like composition) one can accurately consider solid as an illusion. I've been studying physics for over 30 years. Although the field excitation is popular and gaining momentum that doesn't mean there is equal validity in the particle view. Both have their applicability, where one better describes an interaction than the other.

Why 2) if your thinking entanglement then there is no superluminal action, communication or hidden variable involved.

The particle view doesn't particularly work well. A primary reason is one such as spin of an electron. In order to consider an electron spinning via its angular momentum in the particle view the electron would have to exceed the speed of light by a factor of 10. This obviously alerted physicist that an electron cannot be spinning such as a ball. However under the field excitation spin is addressable due to the increased radius of the applicable interactions. Numerous interactions and measurements are making the field excitation view far more likely. Factors such as quantum tunneling, Bose-Einstein condensate state and in particular the Higgs field interactions are far easier to explain under the excitation view. The pointlike and wavelike characteristics of a particle becomes readily addressable as the pointlike characteristics as an excitation is simply another wavefunction that is readily localized . The article below explains waveparticle duality via the excitation view "There are no particles only fields" https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4616

The anti Desitter metric itself works for any case where the geometry is a negative curvature. The conformal portion applies to the string theory portion of the metric. The positive curvature is covered via the De-Sitter spacetime. The metric is particularly useful to allow string theory flexibility in regions of strong couplings such as the EH of a blackhole.

Electroweak Langrangian L=−14WαμνWμνα−14BμνBμν+Ψ¯¯¯¯iγμDμΨ W1,2,3μ and Bμ Covariant Derivative Dμ=∂μ+igWμτ2−ig´2Bμ mass eigenstates observed in experiments are linear combinations of the electroweak eigenstates. Hence W− and W+ W±μ=12−−√(W1μW2μ) γ and Z are\ Aμ=BmucosθW+W3μsinθW Zμ=BmusinθW+W3μcosθW Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix ⎛⎝⎜⎜d´s´b´⎞⎠⎟⎟⎛⎝⎜VudVcdVtdVusVcsVtsVubVcbVtb⎞⎠⎟⎛⎝⎜dsb⎞⎠⎟ symmtric massless SU(2)L⊗U(1)γ −LW=g2√UIL¯¯¯¯¯¯γμ1DiLW+μ+hc UIL and DIL is a vector in generation space of the up/down quark interaction-eigenstates. while 1 is a unit-matrix in generation space. Symmetry break (weak) LY−UIL¯¯¯¯¯¯FUIRH0∗+DILGDIRH0+hc VeV 〈H0〉=v/2–√ F and G are Yukawa matrices. quark mass terms MU=Fν2–√::MD=Gν2–√ Gauge Interaction LW=gsqrt2UL¯¯¯¯¯¯γV†LDLW+μ+hc where V†L is the mixing matrix for quarks giving n generations (n*n unitary matrix) with n2 parameters, in which n(n-1)/2 can be chosen as real angles and n(n+1)/2 are phases subsequent transformation v=PUV†LP∗D v=⎛⎝⎜VudVcdVtdVusVcsVtsVubVcbVtb⎞⎠⎟ for 3 generations of quarks THE CKM QUARK-MIXING MATRIX 1) https://escholarship.org/content/qt1jt6c151/qt1jt6c151_noSplash_4cb0f722c2c328730fbac6c5d0971db9.pdf Feymann Integrals by Stefan Weinzierl 2) https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03593 PMNS mixing matrix https://pdg.lbl.gov/2020/reviews/rpp2020-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf

Unfortunately it dropped the math structure in the fractions and dropped the superscript to subscripts etc. I will simply redo it. At least the Electroweak section and just reference the statements for the Feymann Integrals I want to explore. Maybe a few days though. The reference is one I just recently found and is extremely informative.

Why did all the math symbols and structures dissappear? Will have to redo this from scratch

Feymann Integrals set c=ℏ =1, (D-1), momentum o particle p as D dimensional vector D(00) =E/c with D-1 remainder spatial components Minkowskii scalar product of pa,pb pa⋅pb=pμagμνpμb set propogator of a scalar particle momentum p and mass m 1p2+m2 consider graph G with Next external edges, Nint internal edges and L=loop number for connected graphs page 16 forwards on Feymann graph rules Feymann Integrals by Stefan Weinzierl https://arxiv.org/abs/2201.03593 project goal examination of the gauge group langrangians with above reference and applying the QFT creation and annihilation operators and QFT propogators Electroweak Lanqrangian L−14WαμνWμνα−14Wμνμν+Ψ¯¯¯¯iγμDμΨ W1,2,3μ[ and Bμ are the 4 spin 1 fields Covariant derivative D2=∂μ+igWτ2−ig´2Bμ W+ andW− bosons are expressed as W±μ=12−−√W1μ∓iW2μ) γ and Z as Aμ=Bμ cosθw+W3μ sinθW Zμ=−Bμ sinθw+W3μ cosθW The Cabibbo-Kobayashi-Maskawa matrix

bump I would like to get back to this took a break

Thanks for the link. Nice to see additional validation for the cosmological principle. Will study in more detail

If a hypothetical graviton is found. (Though we would need far higher energy levels at an LHC) it would most likely be a spin two boson. We're nowhere near the technology to produce one (TeV ) energy range. Wish we could though quantizing gravity would be easily done.

Sounds like a bad scene in men in black lol

In essence correct the FLRW metric is however in the weak field limit so SR is still useful. The slight curvature will cause deviations at extreme ranges however is approximately flat for the shorter ranges. Past the Hubble horizon the deviations become apparent. The recessive velocity and Z scale will become more progressively non linear. ( In order to correct for this one must take into account the evolution of the matter, radiation and Lambda densities) The updated cosmocalculator has that capability see signature.

Also under density wave theory involved in spiral galaxies you get some seperation of heavier elements. When those stars form from that material you will find differences in composition depending on the abundance of elements in each region

You will be applying pressure to something that in cosmological observation doesn't exert pressure. This would give you the wrong equation of state for matter. Just because you can mathematically do something doesn't necessarily mean it's correct...

No that doesn't give matter a pressure term.

IsThe total energy/mass density doesn't just depend on H. It also involves the mass density for matter, radiation and Lambda. Radiation and matter will stretch differently due to expansion However the mean average wavelength stretch will become equal at Z_eq. (Matter, radiation equality). Then too you must also equate the equations of state for matter and radiation to determine the actual energy density. Unfortunately someone changed this page and gave the Lambda approximation for the universe today however during matter domination or radiation dominant eras you would use the applicable equation of state. As an approximation. It is more precise to use the density of each at the Z being examined. (The scale factor can also be used as it equates and does help simplify the calculations) however option works https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) The critical density formula is in actuality a matter only approximation. The pressure equals zero. This isn't true for radiation or Lambda.

The Omega total is default normalized to critical density of 1. The calc allows you to change this in the inputs along with H. This gives flexibility to use it with different datasets. Also allows you to change the curvature term. I'm still learning the new features so I will be comparing it to other datasets to see how accurate it is overall. (Keep in mind sometimes the number of digits on the inputs will matter on rounding errors.)

The new cosmocalculator is out they had to change the host site. There is still some bugs being resolved however they increased the flexibility of the calculator http://jorrie.epizy.com/LightCone7-2017-02-08/LightCone_Ho7.html?i=1 [latex]{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&Temp(K) \\ \hline 1.09e+3&3.72e-4&6.27e-4&4.53e+1&2.97e+3\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.49e-3&3.95e-3&4.42e+1&9.27e+2\\ \hline 1.05e+2&1.53e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&2.89e+2\\ \hline 3.20e+1&9.01e-2&1.36e-1&3.81e+1&9.00e+1\\ \hline 9.29e+0&5.22e-1&7.84e-1&3.09e+1&2.81e+1\\ \hline 2.21e+0&2.98e+0&4.37e+0&1.83e+1&8.74e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.44e+1&0.00e+0&2.73e+0\\ \hline -6.88e-1&3.30e+1&1.73e+1&1.12e+1&8.49e-1\\ \hline -8.68e-1&4.79e+1&1.74e+1&1.43e+1&3.59e-1\\ \hline -9.44e-1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&1.52e-1\\ \hline -9.76e-1&7.77e+1&1.74e+1&1.61e+1&6.44e-2\\ \hline -9.90e-1&9.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&2.73e-2\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] One of the bugs is setting the tex format for other columns under the column options which are too numerous to type each option down

Well you can test it I finally got a new link to the updated cosmocalculator. Looks like they added a lot of flexibility to it http://jorrie.epizy.com/LightCone7-2017-02-08/LightCone_Ho7.html?i=1 They have the Omega columns now for the portion each contribute of the total density parameter and how each evolved over time. I would suggest testing your model to it. [latex]{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&Temp(K) \\ \hline 1.09e+3&3.72e-4&6.27e-4&4.53e+1&2.97e+3\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.49e-3&3.95e-3&4.42e+1&9.27e+2\\ \hline 1.05e+2&1.53e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&2.89e+2\\ \hline 3.20e+1&9.01e-2&1.36e-1&3.81e+1&9.00e+1\\ \hline 9.29e+0&5.22e-1&7.84e-1&3.09e+1&2.81e+1\\ \hline 2.21e+0&2.98e+0&4.37e+0&1.83e+1&8.74e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.44e+1&0.00e+0&2.73e+0\\ \hline -6.88e-1&3.30e+1&1.73e+1&1.12e+1&8.49e-1\\ \hline -8.68e-1&4.79e+1&1.74e+1&1.43e+1&3.59e-1\\ \hline -9.44e-1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&1.52e-1\\ \hline -9.76e-1&7.77e+1&1.74e+1&1.61e+1&6.44e-2\\ \hline -9.90e-1&9.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&2.73e-2\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] There is still some bugs in the new calc that has occurred due to having to change the host site. They are still working on it

Well you know the Hubble constant isn't constant. It's value changes as the universe evolves. Look at the H/H_0 column on the table in the previous thread on the first page. Now if H varies in time then applying the critical density formula it too must vary in time. Yet the cosmological constant is constant in time...so does the curvature term k.

Yes we covered this in those pages. Recall that critical density is a calculated value that does not represent the actual total density. It also does not separate the three contributors to expansion. Though our universe is close to the critical density value you still have the contributions of matter, radiation and Lambda. The first two vary in contribution as the universe expands while the cosmological constant does not. On the first page I posted a specific formula to calculate the energy density as a function of Z for the former two...

I see one problem the critical density has three contributors. Matter radiation and Lambda. Currently the primary contributor to expansion being Lambda. However this isn't always the case Critical density is normalized with the other three cosmological parameters a portion of the critical density. Though our universe is perfectly critically dense it's close enough for a good approximation. You need to derive which portion of critical density is due to the cosmological constant.

Yes but you can no longer track them past the EH... Does the black region within the accretion disk not indicate no light signal at any spectrographic frequency ? The image used more than visible light frequencies. A neutron star isn't a true blackbody while the event horizon is as close to perfect blackbody as you can get in nature. It's quite easy to tell the difference from a neutron star from a BH lol. Are you intentionally trying to be obtuse ?

If you don't feel event horizons exist you might want to review this development. https://www.space.com/first-black-hole-photo-by-event-horizon-telescope.html