Mordred

Your welcome feel free to ask questions on the material. It will give you a feel for what some of the requirements are to properly develop a workable and testable model.

Well let's put it this way. There are testable models for dark energy and matter already developed that involve QFT and the Higgs field. For example DM could be right hand neutrinos which the SM model predicts but has never observed. DR could be a result of the Higgs field itself. Example GUT theories http://arxiv.org/pdf/0904.1556.pdf The Algebra of Grand Unified Theories John Baez and John Huerta http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf http://pdg.lbl.gov/2011/reviews/rpp2011-rev-guts.pdf GRAND UNIFIED THEORIES DARK MATTER AS STERILE NEUTRINOS http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.4119 http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 http://arxiv.org/abs/1306.4954 Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 A theory of Quantum gravity would be solved if we discovered the Graviton. This would solve the singularity problem and revitalization. What is missing isn't viable models. What is missing is the confirmation evidence. In order for any viable model to be confirmed you must have some means to test the viability of said model. These articles will give you some direction. This article will familiarise you with cosmology //www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis

I'm not stating you require x amount amount of pages. I am stating you do require testable predictions which requires the applicable mathematics. You don't need to completely rewrite all of physics to develop a TOE. The only step missing is a working renormalizable theory of quantum gravity. The other three fields is already done. You simply need to study and apply QFT. However you chose a method that would require starting from literally scratch and rewriting every formula involved in particle physics. For example how does your parallel universes work with the standard model of particles

We can expand on the term degree of freedom as well the wiki link covers some of the essential aspects. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrees_of_freedom_(statistics) Also tie this into vectors spinors matrices and tensors.

I have no problem with a sticky for this. It would certainly make a good time saver. I'm still unclear which forum would be most applicable. I'm thinking the modern physics forum may be suitable however one of the math may also be an option. As the term has is applicable in a number of fields including engineering, statistics, computer science as well as physics.

Well it's accurate to describe the cosmological constant as a perfect fluid as a negative vacuum. However it isn't something that is applicable to a medium with which solubility could be applied to. I would say your looking down the wrong garden path.

Sigh it never fails to amaze me how many posters want to invoke other universes to develop a Toe when they cannot describe how our universe evolves. A TOE as I mentioned in your other thread requires the relevant mathematics. The few equations you have do not even begin to describe how particles interact. They do not describe particle generations. The Pauli exclusion principle or apply any of the conservation laws in particle physics which is a primary importance for a TOE. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything So how are you unifying these forces ? What temperature do they reach thermal equilibrium and become indistinct from each other ? What temperature would the weak field or the strong field separate from the unified field ? How does the symmetry breaking of the force fields affect expansion of our universe ? For example electroweak symmetry breaking is one of more commonly theorized causes of inflation. Ie the Higgs inflation as one example. We can already unify three of the four forces. However we cannot keep gravity normalized. How do you mathematically address this ? Let's compare this author tries to deal with quantum gravity though he argues that trying to normalize gravity is the wrong approach. ( quite frankly QM and QFT requires a field to be recognizable) however he presents 428 pages of mathematics. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9910036&ved=2ahUKEwiwzaiJpqbqAhWHtJ4KHQR1AwcQFjAAegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw2G-2qIgljw2zsC9XHKzW55 In my opinion he still hasn't dealt with developing a proper TOE though he claims to have done so. (Peer reviewed articles don't necessarily mean its correct. Only that it meets the criteria of being on topic and the authors own work) Now how does your 8 page article compare ?

I'm not sure how your planning to apply solubility to the cosmological constant. You seem to be missing the scalar and vector aspects behind the equations you have given. Which has nothing to do with solubility. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solubility This is something I have stressed numerous times.

Excellent I didn't have time to focus on this but The answer you got sounds correct.

Here is a good article covering string theory https://arxiv.org/pdf/1107.3967.pdf He will provide some introductory into the various action theories and how they relate to Strings.

Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) now an example of a Langrangian that describes the standard model would be Well when String theory replaces point particles by strings, they are describing how the particular point particle would be described by its wavefunction so excitation would be one valid descriptive however that wavefunction is describing the action of the particle. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_(physics) now an example for the standard model Langrangian is. latex] \mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}[/latex] more details here https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/117992-the-lagrangian-equation/ The gauge groups for the SM model of particles being [math]\mathcal{G}=SU(3)_c\otimes SU(2)_L\otimes U(1)_Y[/math] (the U(1) group is often referred to the circle group. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_group note the reference to the complex numbers. all these groups reside in the SO(3.1) Poisson group which describes spacetime. (Though the actual space will vary) more often than not its infinitismal spaces. The String length would be of the order of roughly [math]10^{-32}[/math] cm. You replace the Feymann diagrams with surfaces and the World line of the particle by a world sheet. Now under string theory to describe all the Bosons would require 26 dimensions. To include fermions there you need more dimensions depending on the string theory variation. Such examples being Hetoric SO(32) and [math]E_8\otimes E_8[/math]. These employ Super symmetry. Now in order to describe the entire standard model of particles plus their supersymmetric partners. One needs 10 spacetime dimensions (keep in mind the definition I gave above). You have the usual 4 dimensions of GR plus 6 others. The other six are considered extremely small ie the value at the beginning of this thread. They would be used to describe rotations etc such as particle spin. (do not think of a particle as a ball) The spin angular momentum term is describing an instrinsic spin that involves magnetic moments. For example it takes a spin 1/2 particle takes 720 degrees to return to its original state. However a beach ball only requires 360 degrees. Now each wavefunction can be described under a space however infinitisimal. I prime example is Hilbert or phase space. Each of these spaces can be described as a field. A field is simply a set of values (or other mathematical objects) under a coordinate basis. So physicists needs a way to describe numerous different fields in the same volume of spacetime. Fields or world sheets (string theory) can reside in the precise same locations but be treated seperately. Some worldsheets or fields can affect other world sheets or fields. So you can have connections between them. Others have no affect upon other fields and remain disconnected. However regardless of whether your using Strings, worldsheets, Fields etc. These are all abstract mathematical objects. They are descriptive's we use to explain the math the verbal descriptive's we assign to the relations we are describing. They are not fundamental objects. The term dimension is also an abstract mathematical term. Hope this helps

Well let's start with the term dimension in physics. This includes string theory. Dimension is any independent variable or mathematical object that can change in value without changing any other value. The common example bring (t,x,y,z) each of these coordinates (spacetime) can change in value without affecting the other value. Now in particle physics including QFT and QM. The effective degrees of freedom from the various particles will often be described under a dimension basis. For example the SU(2) group is two dimensional. While the SU(3) group is three dimensional. In string theory they describe a point particle as a string. This describes its Langragian ie how the particle will behave. It isn't some fundamental component on its own but rather a method to describe its wavefunctions. There is no separate parallel universes involved in the use of the term dimension. The 11 dimensions of string theory is referring to independent mathematical objects. Phase space or configuration or parameter space is simply a means of representing different types of graphs. Ie one can graph the relations between different parameters and how the evolve. The space does not necessarily entail a physical volume.

None of these formulas are practical for modelling gravitational systems. For example the formula [math] c^2=-\phi[/math] The second term describes a negative scalar field yet the term on the left hand side is a momentum vector not a scalar. The formula doesn't even describe a vector field for a central potential gravitational body Quite useless overall. Particularly since you have units m/s^2 on the left hand side but either energy of mass density on the right hand side.

Well detailed post +1

Yes if it the same one I have encountered before on his theory he predicted the opposite decay rates for atomic clocks. He does have some english literature though mostly in book format. I have never seen a peer reviewed article from him. Either way the quoted claim that the tests needs to performed when they have been numerous times indicates either poor research or an older theory prior to those tests.

We can already invalidate Yanchilans theory as we have already tested different gravitational potentials for time dilation at different elevations. With precision atomic clocks. Even testing it a distance of one foot. The results agree with GRT. https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2010/09/nist-clock-experiment-demonstrates-your-head-older-your-feet This isn't the only experiment done at different elevations. I assisted at a University that also conducted similar experiments as part of the course curriculum. Though we used the coastal mountains of BC coast. It was pointless publishing the results. Nothing newsworthy or unexpected.

This post says it all +1

The speed limit c applies to cosmic rays and quite frankly the mechanism that determines the velocity is understood. Secondly cosmic rays are produced by any star. You don't need micro blackholes. So that is a false assumption.

Neutrinos mediate the weak interactions. So they do interact with other particles however they would not act as a buffer.

No there is only specific particle interactions in which neutrinos are involved in. These involve various particle conservation laws. Matter antimatter pairs readily comply with those laws. Neutrinos can still provide clues to baryogenesis though as we still haven't located right hand neutrinos. So the neutrino family could provide some clues.

On the use of Einstein Cartan for a rotating universe. The observational evidence via CMB etc strongly rules out a rotating universe. I recall seeing a study that suggested the likelihood being 1 part in a billion if I recall correctly when I had last looked into it. The metric though is still handy as it has all the metrics needed to model spacetime rotation.

I fully agree with Markus on one of the better torsion included models The Einstein Cartan method is one the better ways to understand torsion in a field. Works well with the Godel universe (with the additive of commoving coordinates. Once you introduce rotation of a BH. You will get multiple horizons. Understanding causal zones can get quite illusive. Methods like the Penrose diagrams are a good aid.

Probably was the latter.

Also geological evidence and meteor analysis including carbon dating match with the solar system materials we can examined thus far.

Yeah unfortunately I haven't been able to reach the other contributors that owned the domain site. It's too bad it was a versatile calculator.