Mordred

I don't your understanding. It doesn't make sense to apply smaller fluctuations to what amounts to strictly a volume. If you remove all particles you have strictly volume. The curvature term arises when you add those particle fields. A spacetime field devoid of all other fields would be static with zero curvature term. Ie an Einstein vacuum. The Stress energy momentum tensor which tells spacetime how to curve would be [math]T_{\mu\nu}=0 [/math] There would also be no time dilation. Spacetime by itself isn't a thing it the environment the Standard model of particles reside in. Think of it this way spacetime curvature is the effect caused by the sum of the mass terms of the SM particle fields. Mass being resistance to inertia change or simply resistance to acceleration.

Time will never be a thing. No matter how much you try To make it so. It will always be a rate of change.

Ok first off spacetime itself isn't a substance or medium. The fabric of spacetime is only used in an analogy for laymen. Secondly this has far too many similarities to an eather theory to possibly ignore. If you had some medium flow the speed of light would not be constant. So the Michelson Morley experiment itself would falsify this theory. Spacecurvature involves the mass density of the standard model of particles. If you remove all SM particles (including virtual particles) you would have zero curvature. Including fluctuations as spacetime itself is just volume with time given dimensionality of length under a geometry basis. The only commonality between DM and DE is the word dark as a placeholder. They have completely different influenced and characteristics. A directional flowing field will not generate the scalar field that describes the cosmological constant. Regardless of how minute the fluctuations are. You would have a vector field of quantum fluctuations and not a scalar field. There are numerous other considerations and corrections to be made in your proposal but let's start with the above.

Another classical example of a momentary non linear oscillator is the quarterly amplitude decay in PID temperature controllers when they are stabilizing to set point. Unless the controller is fine tuned for critically damped setpoint.

Consider the above.I would recommend you read through the chronology though the exact times are model specific so you will get numerous variations on the sequence in that link. I usually avoid wiki, however I haven't the time atm to get you a decent article. I will later on.

I suggest you look into big bang nucleosynthesis starting from electroweak symmetry breaking as the above isn't accurate. Atoms for one could not form until the temperature dropped sufficiently low enough. That occurs during the epoch of recombination. Any period before then has sufficient free electrons. If you like later on when I get a chance I will show how the Saha equations show when the loss of free electrons will occur.

Good so you agree on the requirement for free electrons. You also agree that from here to Z=6 approximately there are insufficient free electrons for Thompson scatterrings. However I should note that any point between electroweak symmetry breaking and the surface of last scatterrings there will be. Hence the cosmological dark age. The mean free path of photons are less that 10^{-32} metres. Now you know Thompson scatterrings only really applies to low wavelengths of light x-rays and gamma rays will involve Compton scattering. (The breakdown of the nonrelativistic limit). So why would you feel a correction is required for z=1 and z=2 when you also know Thompson scatterrings doesn't apply to all spectrums of light ? And you know we use spectronomy to determine luminosity ? (Luminosity being one of the more common tools used) Tully Fisher, Faber Jackson relations both use it) Ie the luminosity distance relationship as mentioned before we do rely on redshift alone. Also have angular diameter distance and various forms of parralax. Lastly given polarity aspects of scatterring we are able to determine when scatterrings are occuring. The graphs in those links demonstrate that. Please don't take anything I state in offense. I present challenges to consider. A good robust model must overcome challenges. That is the truth behind the scientific methodology. You must weigh every piece of evidence.

Here is the Arxiv article. Lol there isn't a lot of certainty in this thus far. (Far too few instances) https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.11111

For example the polarization cross section for Thompson scatterrings is [math]\frac{d\sigma_T}{d\Omega}\propto|\hat{\epsilon}\cdot\acute{\hat{\epsilon}}|[/math] where the two epsilons are the scatterring angles. The linear polarizations intensity would be 90 degree phase shifted. The CMB temperature anistropies lead to quadrupolar anistropies. You also get the quadrupolar in plasma such as our sun or quasars etc. Now these polarization angles depend upon observer location by viewing the same object from different orbit locations ie as the Earth rotates around the sun. Those angles will change. This is nothing like redshift and nothing like the cosmological constant. Now you might think 1 % is miniscule at z=1 however that becomes a major factor if you extend the curve you graphed to z=1100. You wouldn't even be able to measure the CMB at that range. So no your application is wrong plain and simple. If you want proof extend that graph to 100 percent opacity. You would reach that far sooner than z=1100. I seriously doubt you even get to the range of the Hubble horizon. As the curve is non linear your maximum range would be less than Z=100. You wouldn't be able to see over a quarter of the current observable universe. The Z scale is also non linear it is only approximately linear to the Hubble horizon that is when you must apply a different cosmological redshift formula to allow for the nonlinearity. Not that opacity has anything to do with cosmological redshift. Those two terms describe completely different processes. The other fact your either not aware of is that the temperature of the universe evolves with the expansion of the universe. If the universe radius is smaller the temperature would be higher. This is another piece of evidence that corresponds to expansion rate.

Consider the fact that Thompson scattering has completely different observation effects than the cosmological constant. You keep ignoring the other facts that have been presented by peer review articles I have posted. Scattering has polarity effects that lead to distortions. If anything this would mean that the methodology of determining the curvature of spacetimne itself would be invalid. The CMB distortions was a major determining factor in this via the WMAP, COBE and Planck measurements. We can measure scatterrings via spectronomy due to the polarity shifts. We do this all the time when measuring plasma including our own Sun. The reason you will never find any papers concerning scatterrings below the ranges in those papers posted us that any scatterrings below that range are next to non existent. It would not affect just SNe 1a but all observations including other galaxies. We can measure the scatterrings near quasars. The quasars has processes that heat up the surrounding temperature sufficient to allow the scatterrings to occur. With this tool we can measure the temperature anistropies. All scatterrings are a primary tool used in astronomy research. Were quite versed in its applications.

I can name several things impossible regardless of technology under physics. For starters it is impossible to measure below a quanta of action even with the most idealized detector. You might believe otherwise but belief has absolutely zero scientific bearing. It is equally impossible to measure beyond the particle horizon. So one cannot discern a finite universe which the simulation universe stipulates in the above paper. No matter what we can measure you cannot claim that measurement is a result of a simulation or not. However this is off topic of the OP which specified quantum weirdness and not the simulation hypothesis.

No particle anti particle pairs both have positive energy density. The only difference between the two is charge. The positron mass is identical to the electron mass. The plus and minus sign is an identifier.

That formula only applies to regions where Thompson scattering occurs. You need to prove that free electrons would be available at the range you described and if you run through the BBN calculations you will find the limit where free electrons are available. One of the more accurate methodologies is the Saha equation for that. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saha_ionization_equation Simply applying the equation to any region isn't sufficient in itself. Thompson scattering will not apply to atoms. However when it comes to scattering with neutral hydrogen atoms you need to apply the Lyman limit which will correspond to the Gunn Peterson trough. https://www.sns.ias.edu/~ting/Lyman_Alpha_Module/HTML/Lyman_Alpha_Forest_Student.html For neutral hydrogen scattering you can apply Compton scattering or Ramen and Rayleigh. Not Thompson scattering however those formulas do apply Thompson scattering for the free electron basis. I would like you to consider the following. With CMB measurements Thompson scattering is anisotropic as it has dependence on observer orientation. It is one of the key sources for intensity and polarization anisotropies in the CMB. In essence it causes blurring and measurable distortions. This is the bsZ effect as well as the ksZ effect. You can google how this relates to the Sache-Wolfe effect. In essence Thompson scattering has polarization terms. Here is one relevant Arxiv. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.08428&ved=2ahUKEwjTyJeCzIjoAhUhGDQIHd4CBVQQFjAEegQIBxAC&usg=AOvVaw059alAsHMLGMULdQsmuocD One primary detail your not looking at is density variations has polarization effects with regards to all scatterings.

There is several problems with the above. Pressure is a mean average vector. It describes the amount of force upon container walls in classical treatment. Under GR it is described via the i'th direction in the stress energy tensor. The p=-p is a vector directional representation. The cosmological constant has a positive energy density it's value is roughly [math] 7.0*10^{-10} math] joules/m^3 Negative pressure does not equate to negative energy density. Energy is the ability to perform work. Under GR the baseline is the Einstein vacuum which is devoid of all energy density. The cosmological constant is above that baseline just as is all matter. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor What this means is that negative pressure is tension it takes work to expand a fluid rather than take work to compress a fluid that is what negative pressure describes. It is also why w=-1 describes and incompressable fluid as no compression force is applied. See here for reference of how the equations of state apply to the acceleration equation (actually it's the deceleration equation) https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~dhw/A5682/notes4.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiWj8KEsYfoAhWBJTQIHd-2CEoQFjABegQICBAB&usg=AOvVaw0xjZcR1b8OcNFbrriXGEr2

QM weirdness is already treated relative via QFT lol. Seriously though many place too much store in quantum interpretations. While they are useful tools what is fundamentally important is that we can accurately model the dynamics we can measure in the quantum regime.The problem lies with the region we can never potentially measure as their is insufficient action. Ie the propogator portion of a Feymann path integral. Some of the interpretations such as the Bohmian attempts to stick to the particle view while others the particle is a wavefunction. Yet the pointlike properties can be described by a wavefunction. There will always be contention between these two views. Entanglement and hidden variables are one source of contention between the two views. Yet often both forget that the act of entanglement itself makes hidden variables unnecessary. You can start establishing your correlation function with the rest of the probability involving the experimental apparatus.

A major hurdle being the graviton being the fundamental particle. I agree QFT via perturbation does a far better job of matching observational criteria. Though a careful study of both theories naturally involve highly similar mathematics. One thing I have learned from studying numerous treatments. Many of the same methodologies are applied in all theories once you get down to the nitty gritty. Developments to overcome are a part of physics. Regardless of model. String theory is still considered viable however myself I feel QFT does a more accurate and robust job with regards to particle physics. However that is only based on my studies (though intensive). Lol though all tools are handy in any personal modelling I do. I find a lot of lessons of value in the higher tensors in String theory. Ie past 4d symmetry treatments.

I've seen similar claims for diquarks and pentaquarks so I would be hesitant on the DM claim.

The first step to understand is that in physics models including string theory is that a dimension is any independent variable or quantity/function that can change in value without changing any other. ( This includes string theory) the extra dimensions correspond to particle degrees of freedom that correspond to their interactions. It does not refer to dimension as per another universe etc. String theory applies waveform descriptives to the properties we describe as a particle. In this sense it isn't different from QFT. A string is a waveform descriptive. It follows GR but more so in the SR regime as gravity is so weakly in the quantum regime.

Well from a personal view, I find that the quantum regime isn't weird once you remove classical viewpoints. Entanglements and wavefunction collapses obviously involve probability functions but the mathematics are similar to statistical mechanics.

You might find this Warp field mechanics paper supplies a lot details. The fundamental problem is generating negative mass density. So whether that's feasible or not is another question.

Here is an angular momentum short article buy gives a good example of the above. You will the above applies including the right rule rule. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www3.nd.edu/~mhildret/phys10310/lectures/LectureCh11.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiP6eWF8P_nAhUYGDQIHRZiC6oQFjAAegQIARAB&usg=AOvVaw21GK_qM-EVcYKGr3gnCw60

Sigh no you have to recognize that harmonic, inharmonic and anharmonic are descriptives of the characteristics of the oscillator. Here is how classical harmonic oscillator is described. A simple harmonic oscillator is a sinusoidal oscillations about the equilibrium point, with a constant amplitude and a constant frequency (which does not depend on the amplitude). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_oscillator Note what stays constant An anharmonic oscillator n classical mechanics, anharmonicity is the deviation of a system from being a harmonic oscillator. An oscillator that is not oscillating in harmonic motion is known as an anharmonic oscillator where the system can be approximated to a harmonic oscillator and the anharmonicity can be calculated using perturbation theory. If the anharmonicity is large, then other numerical techniques have to be used https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anharmonicity Note this oscillator deviates from the harmonic oscillator. Now see the examples they provide for each on the restoring force ? Now the quantum harmonic oscillator is the Spring example as opposed to the pendulum example. The first example the restoring force is a linear function. However it is also a symmetric linear function which can be described by the inner product. The inner of two vectors returns a scalar Ie magnitude. So the momentum in the spring is described by linear functions. The latter case the vectors are curvilinear the force follows a spinor rather than a vector. In this case you also require the direction so you would need the cross product of the vector. This is antisymmetric The pendulum example requires angular momentum equations which are not linear. You need to understand this to start being able to identify when a ratio of change is symmetric or antisymmetric in wavefunctions. Don't worry about inharmonic functions for now let's get this clear first. Edit this also a vital key to understanding the Maxwell equations as well as GR. As its applicable to all physics models

Yes that is correct, however another side consideration is that cosmology doesn't rely on any one methodology to measure distances. It's well documented that due to not fully understanding the processes of the SNe 1a. That one cannot rely to heavily on that method. Secondly no method handles all ranges accurately so we employ the numerous methods of the cosmic distance ladder for validation. If I recall correctly there is also a certain range near z=6 where other adjustments must be made for angular diameter distance. When you get down to the nitty gritty the SNe 1a just gives us a reasonable ballpark that further research of other methods then fine tune. The inherent problem with redshift is that emitter frequencies must be well known. After equation 6 that link mentions some of the considerations that must further addressed. Though not all the considerations are mentioned. For example the typical textbook redshift equation must be adjusted for the non linearity past Hubble horizon.

Even from SNe 1a to Earth I don't see how there would be Thompson scattering however given the range of wavelengths emitted ? I'm still looking at the luminosity range only certain frequencies would be affected. lol it is am interesting question that makes one want to research closer...So I've been looking at the SNe 1a data. Currently looking at the Compton and Klien Nimishi scattering due to processes involved in the composition of the SNE 1a. It definetely emits xRays which wouldn't apply Thompson scattering. https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2094

As this is your final post nothing you have stated changes any of my comments. Lastly physics didn't stop with Einstein. It's too bad you teach outside the described curriculum in an institution. Quite frankly the job of a teacher is to follow the school curriculum despite personal opinion. It's too bad you never examined the Lorentz transforms for relativistic vector addition. You would have realized you don't require the speed of light to apply them. One can show the speed limit of information exchange without using light from those transforms. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Relativ/einvel.html One thing about this thread is that you haven't applied the interval ct which is what gives time dimemsionality of length nor have you mentioned coordinate time or proper time. Nor have I ever seen you apply the dot vs cross products with regards to velocity addition. quite frankly all these little situations you describe never included any of the calculations...just verbal statements. That is insufficient to change my mind.