Mordred

I'm still waiting for a mathematical description for a strand. I thought I was very clear on that. What determines how many strands are required etc. You have no idea how many ppl state this or that alternative model is just like the standard model. To attempt to avoid the required mathematics. I want a clear and concise mathematical demonstration of the advantages you claim your model produces that the standard methodology cannot produce mathematically. Is that not clear enough, you can use whatever method you prefer canonical as per QFT, conformal etc but mathematically prove your model. I know what QFT is capable of and how the SM Langrangians apply I want a demonstration of your model to compare to. I'm going to have to assume a strand is nothing more than something completely non existent out of sheer imagination land with zero zip physicality unless you can mathematically show me otherwise.

A simple answer is that the pointlike particle properties can be defined by the Compton or Debroglie wavelength within the QFT regime the particle is described via states. One can literally study entire QFT textbooks without once reading the word particle.

Great then if you understand that then you should have no problem putting in the arrows following the Feymanm rules for time ordering. Secondly you should recognize that under QFT you involve probability amplitudes with the Feymann diagrams and that they represent equations. So getting back to my earlier point you should be able to reproduce those equations with your Tangle model... I would like you to choose any Feymann diagram you have and show me how you can use your tangle model to reproduce the chosen diagram... The mathematical equivalent if you cannot do so then I see no point in ever using your tangle model. In other words what mathematical basis defines how each strand contributes to reproduce a vertex. Why does it twist etc . Is that English clear enough ? My physics requires equations not verbal descriptives and claims. If you make a claim I want the mathematical proof to support that claim.

HiReally so where is your time ordering for particle antiparticles ? Do you not know those Feymann golden rules ? How do you get [math]ZZ\rightarrow HH[/math] [math]ZZ\rightarrow H[/math] yes but you have both why ? What is the probability amplitude for the first reaction compared to the second ? Is the the first valid with the conservation laws ? I should be able to perform calculations from your Feymann diagrams but they are missing essential details. Perhaps it's you that needs to learn how Feymann diagrams work. The steps are as follows 1) write down a delta function at each vertex to conserve energy momentum. Multiply those terms together. 2) write down one coupling constant for each vertex 3) write down a propogator for each internal line 4) multiply all the factors together 5) integrate over internal moments. For example for EM each vertex will have a copy of -ig A spin zero propogator is [math]\frac{I}{q^2-m^2}[/math] usually denoted by a dashed line. Now I could go through numerous examples however let's skip that for a second and recognize that the amplitudes for the above will also correspond to the decay rates as the decay rate is the square of the amplitude. I should be able to look at your diagrams and calculate the amplitude. In other words determine [math]M_{total}=\sum^n_{i=0} g^{k_i}M_i[/math] where [math]g^{k_i}[/math] are the coupling constants for each [math]M_i[/math] k describes the order of interaction. Ie k=1 is the first order k=2 the second order. Higher order terms will have more factors of g. When g is sufficiently small as I gets larger we can cut the sum off to get a reasonable estimate of the amplitude in the above. Now Feymann diagrams aside the strings in string theory also has specific formulas the boundary conditions bring Dirichlet and (Neumann) not positive on latter. String theory isn't particularly something I focus on. Each string is mathematically defined and can be plotted. That is what I am asking you to do. Not just randomly draw twirls and swirls with random number of strands. There is no such thing as a complete list of Feymann diagrams I can promise you and demonstrate numerous examples of Feymann diagrams not included in your two links. For example you have no Penquin diagram https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penguin_diagram Here is a good list but this isn't even a complete list. https://www.physik.uzh.ch/~che/FeynDiag/Listing.php It's common examples so don't tell me yours is a complete list.

I would think the sun itself is more a contributor than a cell phone. Thinking back on the days when I use to test x ray machines for compliance. Even their levels is less than our everyday exposure to the Sun. A cell phone doesn't even compare.

Showing that you can mathematically plot each strand on graph with all the curves and boundary conditions. Also provide a reason for each strand to exist according to conservation laws. For example why does the 1/2 fermion require x strands and what is the mathematical reason behind that determination including application to the right hand rule. Did you make up those Feymann diagrams yourself ?

Your still not understanding the meaning behind degree of freedom. Pretty pictures in your link is not mathematics. There is a formula behind every vertex can you reproduce those formulas using your tangles? Can you determine the range of a force ? Can you determine which decays are allowed and which are not ? You can draw as many pretty pictures as you want it's not pictured that makes predictions. You require the mathematics beyond your basic Newtonian first order formulas.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating how to derive a vertex for a fermion here without having to go through your links. Secondly you should have only three degrees of freedom specifically three independent variables. As that is the definition of a dimension in physics. Including string theory. Under proper mathematical definition of a dimension which all valid physics models employ claiming you can derive all the individual properties of any particle and be restricted to three degrees of freedom would be false. There is four effective degrees of freedom just in spacetime. The four independent variables being x,y,z,t. Spin of a particle including its antiparticle will have various degrees of freedom depending upon its spin value. I looked through your papers that have far more claims than mathematical support.

I will stick to QFT at least it has the flexibility of the Feymann path integrals as to particle interactions. I'm not about to waste my time on this. If you want the generations then apply the CKMS and PMNS mixing angles. It's too bad your not applying the mathematics behind string theory not from what I saw in your links above.

The above implies you have a different set of mathematics for SR. So when are you planning on posting them ? Quite frankly it is the math that counts not verbal word play. Also what is wrong with using the correct terminology ? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_element Ie see here for ds^2 Or for s^2 the spacetime interval. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime#Spacetime_interval This Susskind video does an excellent job of showing how the invariance comes about.

Did you miss the Toy model portion of the descripive. ? The author isn't stating negative mass exists.

Your still making zero sense. There is never number 2 in any observational evidence. If number two doesn't describe matter/antimatter pairs then when can number ever apply ? What is your mysterious pair creation describing pixie dust ? You already agree all particles has positive mass. Every object in our universe is made of particles. So every object in nature has positive mass.

Particularly since it's already been explained that both particle and anti particle both have positive mass. Yet here we are again...

Sigh I really don't understand why you continue to keep having trouble understanding time in spacetime treatment. Simply because an object existed at a specific event. Doesn't mean anything more than that. You have even tried invoking alternative universes because you simply cannot grasp the above.

Once again you still have the problem of negative mass. There is zero evidence of true negative mass ever existing. Wishing it were so simply to make your theory work isn't sufficient.

Well good luck then. Just remember that peer review doesn't require a paper to be correct.

Too much thought on wording. The descriptive through spacetime itself can be misconstrued into thinking time has substance. When it is simply a rate assigned to change in events or duration just to be complete. However it common to accept the meaning to simply describe the passing or change in time in accordance to how time is measured Ie units etc. (Lol see the limits of the spoken lanquage by that descriptive). Thus is one of the few uses I find with metaphysics. It debates on how spoken descriptives can be interpreted.

If you wave your hand in an absolute vacuum of spacetime. You will send no variations. Spacetime isn't a medium. It has zero substance or energy. It will not carry sound or vibrations. As it has no medium properties by itself.

I can already falsify FISS, I have been doing so by the details I have posted thus far. There is no reason to pay me. Spacetime by itself without other particles or fields cannot have fluctuations. A study of GR will tell you that. However if you want to get intensive a study of the Langrene and principle of least action will also do so. Now if you stated that particle fields can cause fluctuations in worldline paths via the Principle of least action which the standard model physics already states then there is no need for FISS. As those fluctuations ate already included by the Langrene of the path integrals of the SM model. The difference is What causes the fluctuations at each Infinitisimal position along a particle worldline path. Take this thought experiment. Start with a volume of spacetime devoid of all other particles. Then have a single particle travel from point A to point B. Will the particle path fluctuate from a true straight line path ?

Well stepping back from my perspective your missing a huge amount of detail. You don't need quantum fluctuations or FIZZ to explain spiral arms is a good example. You don't even require GR. Macroscopic processes does an adequate job. Do you need DM to avoid Kepler rotation absolutely. Will FIZZ help explain galaxy rotation Not from what you presented thus far. I am starting you from the basics as you have a lot to learn. GR maybe a macroscopic theory however as Markus mentioned were well equipped with current theories to handle fluctuations. However what causes the fluctuations is the issue I have been stressing. Spacetime by itself cannot cause anything. It is simply the arena where particles reside. It is the particle fields that causes what we term spacetime curvature. The second sentence " matter tells spacetime how to curve" is a vital clue. It is the property of particle fields that influencedthe curvature term. Mass arises from the 18 coupling constants of the SM model. The problem is your declaring solutions to numerous problems without understanding the basics of spacetime or QM/GR. By itself spacetime cannot cause any action upon any particle. It is other fields that cause the effective action.

Lol I tried doing the mathematics for a wormhole using partial derivatives years ago. After three months of losing track of where I was at I threw my hands up. They are not trivial by any imagination.

Any other point of view would not be consistent with any physics model including GR. Though it is a dimension as any independent variable ( degree of freedom) is precisely what a dimension is defined as. Space has three independent variables. Time makes the fourth independent variable.

Think carefully of what I have been stating and the above expression.

However it is not within the GR descriptive nor within QFT which employs GR. You cannot curve a volume The quantum fluctuations of QFT involve particle fields. Can you not see the difference. You require particle fields to have a curvature term. The curvature describes the particle Worldline from point A to point B. This worldline follows the path of least action. Your paper doesn't encompass any of the Langrangian which are used to determine the path integrals. Nor did I see any of the relevant GR formulas.

So as you mentioned Ryden let's use Barbera Rydens benchmark model. Introductory to Cosmology 2006 page 189. Recombination and Decoupling. By the Way Barbera Rydens textbook was one of my favourites. Now She starts with stating that in order to understand the CMB one must understand the transition of when ionized plasma to a gas of neutral atoms. The first stage mentioned is the epock of recombination. Numerically the time when the number density of ions equals the number density of neutral atoms. She then described the epoch of photon decoupling. (The time of which the photons that scatter from electrons becomes smaller than the Hubble parameter) be careful here the Hubble parameter evolves over time is much much higher in this time period. When photons decouple they cease to interact with electrons and the universe BECOMES transparent. The surface of last scatterring being the time when the CMB photons underwent it's last scattering from an electron. Before we go into the math she presents I would like to see if you agree with the above. (Though to use the Saha equation it's often better to start with matter radiation equality). We will also add the redshift values later in accordance to Rydens benchmark model methodology.