MigL

Supersymmetry is now fairly old. ( it was about 10 yrs old, when I first read about it in the 80s ) That is what happened with Sstring/M theory. Unfortunately, in these areas, theory has vastly outpaced observational capabilities. Sometimes beautiful math isn't enough. ( but you insights are instructional and always valued )

Politicians make bad laws most of the time; makes you wonder what they get paid for. Then if a case is brought up, the Supreme Court has to decide whether it is Contitutional. The political leanings of SCJ play a great role in this decision, and why each party tries to fill vacancies with politically like-minded judges. ( to tie it into another thread )

You don't seem to want to address the problems pointed out by forum members. Simply put, in a 3Dimensional space, length and mass don't scale in a way that keeps the Physics unchanged. You either have the violation of mass/energy conservation at the local level, along with ( as you claim ) violation of time symmetry ( Noether's theorem ), yet we know conservation laws hold locally, and there are time reversible processes. Or, you have gravitational changes at the large, or cosmological, scales, such as the laws of gravity being different at cosmological distances, such as galaxies being differently shaped or stars burning hotter/cooler, etc., yet we don't observe any of that either. So other than a mental exercise in "What if ?", what exactly are you hoping to accomplish ?

You can understand the science behind AGW, and be fully aware of the consequences, yet, when you see things like "The world will end in 20 years" or "There will be no humans left", you reaize there are nut-bars on both sides. What the Ukraine situation has proven, is that people are willing to endure the pain of high gas and energy prices, if they perceive it as a good cause. But, when all that happens during shortages, is oil companies lobbying the governments to increase profits or production will decrease even further, to the tune of astronomical profits of over $20 billion in 2021 for companies like Shell or Mobil, you start asking why we are enduring the pain for them to profit. Or why J Biden is dealing with another ( just as bad ) dictator in Venezuela to make up for the losses from the previous dictator that supplied us, yet refuses Canadian oil even though we have , and use, technology to produce it just as clean. By all means have a fair tax on fossil fuels, but re-invest this tax on infrastructure to facilitate the use of electric vehicles. Off-shore wind farms, Solar panel farms in the South-west, along with distribution grids. And major investments in nuclear fusion.

Or, he's speaking of the electroweak era, before a symmetry break and the Higgs mechanism gave particles their current mass. Prior to that, all were massless. Can't find the original paper, yet. Just your link.

How does this come up in the hiring process? And what makes you think a rich person would want to work for you ? As for College/university admission, the only hurdle is tuition; if you can afford that ( and are qualified ) you are in. Your social status never even comes up, and is not rquired to be disclosed. ( or am I thinking Canada, and not US ? ) Although that hurdle is becoming higher and higher. And yes, people have received jail time for 'buying' their kids way into prestigious schools. ( Lori Loughlin and her husband )

The main difference is that an expanding universe is only observed at a specific separation ( intergalactic scales ). The concept of energy conservation is not applicable globally. It is, however, applicable locally. And a "shrinking' universe cannot be supported locally.

Quantum Mechanics does have some element of "we're not allowed to know". It has a name, and is well accounted for in a theory that has been tested countless times, and has great predictive powers. It is called the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Please do so. The universe has expande roughly 1040 times its original size since the recombination era of the CMB ( easily calculated by the ratio of Hydrogen ionization temperature to current CMB temperature, simple gas law ) If we use your simplistic approach that actually everything in the universe has shrunk about 1000 times, that applies to everything, not just atoms. Decreasing the radius of an object by half, while keeping density constant, .requires that its mass, proportional to the cube root of the radius, decreases to 1/8. If you claim that its mass only decreases to half the original weight, then its density must increase 4 times ( proportional to r2 ). According to your proposal, that would mean, that if everything shrank by about 1000 times, the the mass of planets, stars and galaxies has also decreased by about 1000 times, and that would mean they increased in density immensly. By a million times ! The majority of stars would be Black Holes by now. Maybe you should closely consider Markus' comments about scaling. Your theory doesn't seem to 'scale' very well.

Mine also. But there are many others similarly underated by their contemporaries.

It also looks like the Russians have lost their momentum and the Ukrainians a beginning to re-take their cities. Ukraine LIVE: Putin invasion ruined as airport AND city 'retaken' – claims 11k troops dead | World | News | Express.co.uk Seems they were particularly unprepaed for the winter thaw conditions, and how it impairs their mobility re-supply and logistics. Napoleon and Hitler must be turning over in their graves at the irony of the Russian army attacking another country in the winter, and losing, along with massive casualties, due to weather and conditions.

FFS, really? So needless A tyrant is a tyrant, and defined by his actions; what he ( or we ) choose to label his ideology is not really relevant. ( I think the reaction is funnier than the comment, JC )

So, in your 'model' if you reduced the radius of the Earth by half, it would have half the mass ? Did you not say everything scaled accordingly so as to preserve physical laws/relationships ?

Not quite. A Guth's intent with inflation was to explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. For distant parts of the universe, where light ( and information ) can never be in contact to establish isotropy/homogeneity, there had to have been a time in the past, where/when these distant parts were in causal contact ( light/information could traverse the distance between them ). Inflation provided the mechanism, and slots in well with the electroweak symmetry break, and Higgs mechanism. Dark Energy, Cosmological Constant; different names, same function. If there are a lot of atoms, there is a lot of mass/energy/momentum and therefore a lot of gravity. Did you read, and were you able to comprehend, the rest of my post, and that the Cosmological Constant has to exceed the threshold of the gravitational bound for expansion to occurr ? This only happens in intergalactic spaces where the concentration of mass/energy is low enough such that gravity is negligible, and exceeded by the Cosmological constant ( do you prefer dark energy ? ). Or they didn't need to be, saving us the problems associated with scaling of other forces ( as Markus has repeatedly mentioned ), because observations agree just fine with expansion.

Heyy ! They are not fascist tyrants, they are communist tyrants. Although they do seem to use the same methods of oppression.

Even the most simple concepts, such as mass, don't scale well. Shrinking distances by half, would result in shrinking mass to one quarter, as it depends on volume. That extra quarter of missing mass simply disappears in your theory ? Does the Gravitational constant change over time to account for the difference in force over time due to the downscaling ? I can come up with many, many more effects that would need more and more assumptions and changes to modern Physics for your theory to be viable. The current theory does not need any !

I think a reality check is in order before this goes farther ... Bangstrom ( and Caracal, in the other thred ) does not seem to realize how expansion actually works. The Cosmological Constant, responsible for expansion, is just that, a constant term appended to the Einstein equations which describe gravity, which acts 'opposite' the gravitational term, and was originally intended to balance the equations so as to keep the universe static. Since the gravitational terms are variable, but the onstant is not, its effects only become apparent when the gravitational terms are weak enough that the Cosmological Constant exceeds them in magnitude, and the Enstein equations then no longer result in attractive gravity, but rather, cosmological expansion. IOW, we would see expansion only when gravity is weak enough that the Cosmological Constant is able to exceed the threshold of gravitational attraction. And the really great part is, that is exactly what we observe. We don't see spaces between our constituent atoms increase, or the Earth getting larger, or planets and stars moving apart, or even galaxies getting bigger, simply because they are gravitationally bound, and the Cosmological Constant is very small, and below the threshold of the gravitational attraction. We start to note expansion at large intergalactic and intergalactic cluster distances, where gravitational attraction is very small, and the Cosmological Constant tops the threshold of gravitational attraction, and exceeds it. That observational evidence fits in neatly with our theoretical assumptions. A 'shrinking everything' theory, assumes that everything shrinks in scale so that all effects are preserved . ( and as Markus argues that isn't possible ) But we know , from observation, that there has to be a 'cut-off', where, below intergalactic scales this effect is no longer apparent. So either your theory is a non-starter, as it doesn't apply to the reality, or, you need to get back to the drawing board, and come up with a suitable mechanism for your theory to maintain the observed cut-off, and comply with reality.

Maybe he thinks if he saves the day in Ukraine, with a plan to stop the Russians, he's got a chance of getting re-elected. I hear he proposed using F-22 with fake Chinese markings to bomb Russia. Almost as sensible as drinking bleach to cure Covid-19. You see all those people in Russia who have no idea what's happening outside their borders because of government controlled news, and who believe everything V Putin tells them. Yet in America, with all information freely available at your fingertips, a large number of idiots still believe all the crap that D Trump spews. Iwouldn't believe it could be possible, but it is still happening. Can't believe I missed this ... Some people would say I'm still an ass, now.

On first view of videos coming out of Ukraine, you feel sorry for the displaced women and children, the destruction and the suffering, and the deaths of Ukrainians who, just a week ago, were living their lives and going about their business. Some of the graphic videos on Reddit also show what is happening to the Russian soldiers; young kids, scared and confused, some dying in brutal fashion. I feel sorry for them too. All this misery to satisfy the ego of a deluded man who yearns for the long since past glory of 'empire'.

While the density of depleated Uranium is useful in increasing the kinetic energy ( stopping power/penetration of tank armor ) of artillery shells, such as those of the General Dynamics GAU-8 gun of the A-10 Warthog. it it is useless ar a factor for reactivity with acid. Lead-acid batteries exploit the red-ox reaction of the outer valence electrons.

Hopefully Ukrainian nuclear power plants of recent years have built-in redundant safeguards against fires like Western power plants. I'd hate to see another Chernobyl.

Why not ask questions about what you don't know, rather than posting nonsense ?

That is essentially correct, and depends mostly on the model being applied. A classical point particle has no expectation of decay. A quantum particle, which can decay, cannot be localized to a point, because of e the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and the fact that, in QFT, the particle is simply a manifestation of its field. But the OP was asking about a point at the beginning of the universe. A point with no exterior as it encompasses the whole universe, and no internal structure or mechanism/process. So what exactly would cause the transition to expansion/inflation ? The actual universe is believed to have had a finite initial size, which was subject to quantum fluctuations, and may have initiated its expansion/inflation and subsequent structure.

A singular point cannot have any internal attributes that would cause it to become unstable, or inflate. No vacuum fluctuations, no vacuum pressure or false zero energy levels, no Cosmological Constant, etc. So what caused the original expansion/inflation of the Big Bang ?

I'd prefer a Benelli M4 in a home invasion situation. Only because the Franchi SPAS 12 is prohibited in Canada.