Mordred

I am stating this paper is only one study of many. It only presents a possibility of an evolving equation of state and isn't conclusive in the face of other studies.

I did however your not understanding my explanation. I can't exactly give you the math arguments as I doubt you would understand them. Unless your familiar with the FLRW metric and the fluid equations describing the deceleration equation via each equation of state for Lambda, matter and radiation. Lets put it this way I am a professional Cosmologist. In order to correctly explain cosmology to you. I need to find your level of understanding. Otherwise nothing I explain will make sense.

Ok read the paper that link is describing and ask yourself how much you understand. https://arxiv.org/abs/1811.02590 Now this is just one study out of hundreds at different ranges.

No your obviously not understanding the layman descriptions presented by the NASA article that tried to dummy down the actual science for the general public.

The dark energy increasing statement is invalidated by the H/H_0 column for the reasons I explained. Did you want me to show you how a matter only universe can expand ? Dark energy isn't the only reason the universe expands.

This is what our LCDM model is capable of. Do you believe a descriptive compares ? [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 0.312&32.884943&17.184900&11.117770&35.666086&17.224560&2.688&0.838\\ \hline 0.132&47.725063&17.291127&14.219438&107.785602&17.291127&6.313&0.833\\ \hline 0.056&62.598053&17.299307&15.535514&278.255976&17.299307&14.909&0.832\\ \hline 0.024&77.473722&17.299802&16.092610&681.060881&17.299802&35.227&0.832\\ \hline 0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] THE H/H_0 column describes how the Hubble parameter is decreasing in value since CMB.

Ok energy does not exist on it own. The term dark energy is simply used as a place holder for a process were not clear on the cause. I suggest you read Misconceptions (Useful articles to answer various Cosmology Misconceptions) 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 Universe" Lineweaver and Davies In particular the Brian Powell and Lineweaver Davies article. You have no mathematics in your conjecture so really you have no testable model. However I apply LCDM to predict how large the observable universe will be in future and how big it was in the past at any Z value.

Let's take for a random example the statement dark energy rate is increasing. This statement is wrong the rate of expansion per Mpc is actually decreasing however expansion is accelerating due to the sheer volume increase. Lets try to clarify that the Hubble parameter at say Z=1100 380,000 after BB was 12,300 times greater than it is today at roughly 70 km/Mpc/sec. However our volume is far more immense you have a radius of 14,094 Mpc to the cosmological event horizon. As the radius increases even though expansion per Mpc is slowing down the radius of our observable portion is accelerating. That is due to how one describes expansion and expansion rate. Recessive velocity depends on seperation distance. [math]v_{resessive}=H_0 D[/math] it is this statement that describes recessive velocity and what us termed accelerating expansion. However dark energy or more accurately the Cosmological constant has a constant energy density regardless of volume. That energy density is roughly [math]7.0×10^{-10}[/math] joules/cubic metre. Expansion can also occur without dark energy. Radiation and even ordinary matter also contribute to expansion.

Well we have only conjecture and Speculation beyond our observable universe. The only thing one can conclude is the region of shared causality beyond our observable portion must have similar conditions to our Observable portion which represents the region of our shared causality. Otherwise you would have different rates on expansion near the edges of our observable universe. Quite frankly there is very little accuracy in your original post. So really all we can do is point you into the proper direction.

We cross posted see above for my edit. Then I will answer your question in more detail. However your sentence is accurate. Take our entire observable universe, reverse expansion to a finite point. At 10^-43 seconds after the BB that finite point will be one Planck length. Our entire observable universe will have originated in that volume.

The CMB is produced through Big Bang Nucleosynthesis which involves far more than just matter and antimatter. The topic of nucleosynthesis is extremely lengthy and equates to the numerous stages of electroweak symmetry breaking of the standard model of particles along with inflationary processes. If you take our entire observable universe which we are part of and reverse expansion you will teach a finite point. Our observable universe portion is finite. However we know this is not the limit of the entire universe. We do not know if the entire universe is infinite or finite. However we are part of that finite portion that expanded to our current observable universe. The CMB itself surrounds us and can be heard as static on radio waves. One cannot point in any direction and state the BB happened in that direction. Everything we see and can measure is part of the BB origin including our current location.

Given that the energy of a massive particle is [math]e=mc^2 [/math] which quite frankly is one of the more famous formulas and incredibly well tested. While the energy for a massless particle is [math] e=pc[/math] How can you possibly believe [math] e=p_x+p_y+p_z+m [/math] And please don't try and tell me that is according to Diracs equation.

Ok you definitely need to pick up a textbook in vector calculus. Why would you believe [math]E=p_x+p_y+p_z+m [/math] How do you even believe this would work with the Lorentz transformation rules ?

You may want to look over the post I did on QFT. It will give you a good start.

Looking forward to it.

Ok so working in GR you are working in 4D. Yet every waveform you have shown can be described in a Hilbert SU(2) which only requires 2D. In GR the Poincare group is SO(3.1) Special orthogonal. Yet this is a double cover of [math]SU(2)\otimes SU(2)\mathbb/{Z}^2[/math] SU(2) is a special unitary group. Yet the following theories use this symmetry group as their fundamental basis. Where the Z acts as a parity operator group Let me ask you a question. Where is your logitudional and transverse components of your waveforms ? Every waveform in nature has both longitudinal and transverse components. The problem is you need to learn mainstream physics such as GR and relativity. (Both require calculus and differential geometry) though for the Langrangian an excellent tool is calculus of variations. So far all you have done is shown two dimensional waveforms....you haven't even employed a three dimensional waveform let alone a 4d. If you want a good example of a three dimensional equation then look at the Helmholtz equation. (Key note understanding the seperation of variables is critical) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_equation

Good expression I may have to borrow that one

I have yet to see any mathematical representation of geometry. Might be important

Language is flexible and mathematics is a form of language... The language I choose to describe any object or system is a choice. Neither language nor mathematical representation has causation. I can arbitrarily choose any set of mathematics to represent any object or system state. As a professional physicist for example I can choose to describe the dynamics of the Universe in the following list of theories.. LCDM/FLRW metric GR QFT. Lattice gauge Quantum information theory String Theory ADS/CFT. Conformal gauge group. Canonical gauge MOND. TeVeS. Classical The list goes on each has its pros and cons. You might believe I am joking but each of the above models I can equally describe the universe and how it evolves. Mathematics is a choice of representation when you study enough you will learn they all employ similar methodologies.

Now do that in Binary or any other number system from base 10. Base ten is an arbitrary choice.

I can describe the same state or system in a half dozen different mathematical techniques. All would be equally accurate. Just as a coordinate system is an arbitrary choice. So is a mathematical formalism. So it really doesn't make sense to state math has causation. It is literally a means of representation. If you don't believe me how many different number systems can you use to describe a bag of apples ? (Different number systems will often result in different equations)

I can essentially guarantee the proposal in your last post isn't viable. The first thing you must recognize is that energy is simply the ability to perform work. It doesn't exist on its own. So negative energy isn't really applicable. Secondly as I stated before mathematics do not cause anything. They represent or describe. They cannot cause. I would recommend a new thread in Speculation with regard to your universe model if you wish to continue pursuing it.

Yeah the CERN and LHC would ideally be able to achieve higher energy scales for testing. As you stated were barely testing the tip of the iceberg on the seesaw mechanism and the Higgs metastability. We certainly cannot achieve the energy scales during electroweak symmetry breaking when the three items mentioned by the OP would drop out of thermal equilibrium. However the added datasets even at the range we can test can yield some viability or falsification data. Lol it's an interesting challenge fitting the Higgs scalar field into the LCDM metric. Lol particularly if one tries to merely Google the energy density of the Higgs field specifically the average search would give the energy density of the Cosmological constant which is based on the critical density formula. However that value would be a mean average value with the combination of matter and radiation fields as well as Lambda.

Understood most of my reply was directed at the OP to provide a few insights. I am aware of one peer reviewed and professional possible solution to all three of the items described by the OP. However further research into the Higgs field is a huge requirement. In so far as I have encountered numerous articles done by professional physicists that are conjecturing the possibility the Higgs field may help solve DE, DM and the matter/antimatter assymetry problem. Lol might need another decade or two of research but such is science. (Higgs field is still relatively new in cosmology applications so that's to be expected). Anyways here is a few papers on the topic. (I didn't include the CPT related papers) 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

That depends the five post first day limit prevents a lot of spam. In regards to physics theories I'm positive you recognize the need for mathematics for an effective model. As a Cosmologist I have yet to see anything that makes any testable predictions beyond conjectural word play. Properly modelling DE for example could be done by using the FLRW metric without then with DE. The metrics themself is rather simple (far simpler than GR). Dark matter one should look at the NFW profile compared to the originally expected Kepler curve for mass distribution of galaxy rotation curves. Baryogenesis and leptogenesis however is a far far more complicated issue as one must prove an assymetry between matter and antimatter. Good luck without extensive research and mathematics.