sunshaker

Thanks, glad you can see something I have been trying to read up more on the Higgs, Some of it is yet beyond my understanding, I am still yet unsure why 125/126GeV is the "Higgs boson" or not just part of another particles decay, The higgs is not measured directly only through decay products, do all decays register? 56% of the time higgs decays into bottom/anti bottom quarks, 6% into tau anti tau pairs, w bozons z bosons neutrinos etc etc, From what i gather it as something to do with have zero spin which makes it the Higgs candidate? Top quarks can decay into fermions/bosons perhaps higgs? I do not yet see what the higgs can do that top quarks cannot, Whether Higgs may have first been part of a top quark which the Higgs is part of that decay, As in above tables 125 is opposite/joins 48 cadmium Thought there may be a particle found with 48 Gev that (48+125=173GeV) but i don't think there is"yet". I suppose this is the problem when I have little math. first I need to get a better understanding on "spins", Also types of decay, and why most of the time decays paths are different. ,

I have been recently looking at these joined tables has the process for top quarks/anti top quarks 173GeV, When opposing elements/anti elements join each opposing elements add to 173protons, proton/electron numbers, protons 1 GeV, (1 GeV = 1 billion eV) is almost exactly the energy equivalent to the mass of the proton (E=mc2) I realized that when they have created top quarks they decay into many particles but nearly always a bottom quark, Which i believe as a mass of 4.32GeV slightly more than 4x mass of proton. What I then thought what is percent of 4.32 of 173 on my opposing tables (top quarks) I realized they where using beryllium as a target source, berylium is 4 having four protons, which is 4.32% of 173. http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/na62 173 This is where they join, is it also where the split/decay from, I realize I can scale these tables down from atomic/quantum/planck, There are many particles i can see fitting within these tables, ie 11 groups which are in themselves sub atomic particles, 11 divided by 173=15.5 (tau neutrino 15.5mev) It is all down to scales, which I am still trying to understand. Which I know most will not. To me these tables represent where mass comes from, The limits range from 3.6 (4.3 expected) to 61.1 (43.2 expected) for Higgs masses from 100 to 150 GeV/$c^{2}$, respectively. http://www2.physics.ox.ac.uk/contacts/people/azfar/publications/5647

My understanding of "virtual particles", are they come from the planck/sub scales, Scales which the "Higgs inhabits", When talking about quantum fluctuation/vacuum energy being responsible for the cosmological constant. I cannot help but feel virtual particles play a major role, If virtual particles are really universes at planck scales popping into existence everywhere at all times, with the same physics as our universe just many magnitudes of scale smaller, with lifetimes measured to us in planck time, before becoming/adding to this universes vacuum/space, keeping the cosmological constant constant. If our universe is also a virtual particle in another universe many magnitudes larger, our universe would leave behind all this expanded space/vacuum energy, which would add to the vacuum of the universe we are expanding within, Similar to a hologram where each part of a hologram contains the whole. As more space/vacuum is added to each universe by "virtual universes" there will then be more space for virtual particles/universes to come into existence, which would slowly speed up each universe expansion from within. Virtual universe, universes fueled by universes.

I understand where you are coming from with the "ballon/gases", "maybe a poor metaphor" but I see more along the lines, of like if you dropped say a dog biscuit in the ocean, the biscuit being porous to water, expanding biscuit, the energy of the water would not change as the biscuit "expands equally everywhere at once" . until when the "biscuit/dark matter" eventually breaks completely down and can no longer hold together, and becomes a few molecules in a ocean of water. As we believe the "universe" at the start was infinitely small, at that first moment of rapid expansion dark energy/field would have been everywhere at once, the universe/dark energy already "homogeneous/isotropic". I see it as we are living within the time scales of virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, to us on our scales of time/measurements billions of years, when in reality the universe is no more than a virtual particle in a sea of particles. life in the near freeze frame of a virtual particles short existence. In a previous thread I said i believed black holes/gamma ray bursts where one of the processes to keep the universe expanding evenly, sometimes consuming sometimes expelling energies to different areas of universe, one of the reasons i believe why each galaxy as a super massive black hole at its center, along with varying size black holes down to the microscopic/quantum levels. Black holes, the universe regulators/pores. I would like to have a read of your model, And see for myself why you chose to abandon it, is it in this forum?

Which I agree with, But it is still not perfect, Nor does it explain these anomalies which are not understood, Or rule out an outside influence. MORDRED QUOTED Where you stated this as proof that dark energy cannot be an "outside" force of our universe. I mostly agree "dark energy is constant regardless of location within our universe", But even if dark energy is an outside force coming into our universe, Which I think it may be(and perhaps explain some of these anomalies), There is no reason why it would not be "constant regardless of location within our universe" in terms of "universe geometry", If universe is expanding within a dark energy field, the energy properties of dark energy would not change, Only fill the expanding universe, As the dark energy fills the universe there would be no preferred location or direction, Except maybe a few "anomalies" where it first enters universe. In pic below, showing sample area of universe/dark energy, I have placed the milkyway and do not think there would be a preferred location or direction of dark energy. And universe would still be homogeneous/isotropic, at least on scales we understand.

I would believe they are of "great potential value, interest", But I also understand the "politics + funding issues", What I interesting was when i came across what some students of "extragalactic astronomy" had wrote that these anomalies had not been brought up in their classes, but had been ignored.

Which is why I think we should be spending more time understanding these structures that do not fit this model, . Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall#cite_note-conundrum-4 Which is aprox 10.7% of observable universe. Which remind me of the valves of the lung in above picture, "still not saying our universe is a lung", just how similar the structure is at certain scales. But now i must spend some time understanding this " Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall" and similar structures.

Because we have not yet been able to "zoom out" to see if our universe has boundaries, The lung is still a part of another system. But seems homogeneous/isotropic at certain scales from within. Just because what we can "observe seems to be homogeneous/isotropic", does not dismiss an "outside influence",

At sufficiently large and small scales many things appear the same throughout" Before I go any further, I would just like your view on how you would define a lung, viewed at universal scales, would you say it is homogeneous/isotropic ? I am not saying our universe is a lung, But if we existed where I have circled, Would we view our universe as homogeneous/isotropic, existing on a single in breath, would we know where that inbreath came from.

Universe homogeneous/isotropic?, Is near enough good enough? I believe it was a good model, that now needs remodeling, Not stating has "gospel", As our understanding increases certain models "have" to change, Some will always resist change. And hold on tight to a model that as served well. I am not saying I have the answers, but I do believe sometimes you have to look with fresh eyes and without baggage. Mordred quoted but there are values that far exceed this 120Mpc, and there must be many we are yet aware of. coherent oscillations strongly support the idea that the first inhomogeneities in the universe were seeded during the accelerated expansion stage called inflation. The results of WMAP also challenged two of the basic assumptions of the standard cosmological model, isotropy and homogeneity. Indications collected by WMAP for deviations from isotropy and homogeneity on very large scale have been confirmed with Planck What I am trying to say is when some posters throw up that someones idea/theory does not match with an homogeneous/isotropic universe, Neither does our universe on certain scales. This inability in a few to see past a homogeneous/isotropic universe(without exception), closes for them new avenues to explore and understand. Nothing yet is written in stone as fact. Science builds upon science, But sometimes science needs the "old guard" to die of before new ideas can really flourish. Roger G. Clowes at the University of Central Lancashire

You only used one mirror? did you measure the next scale of reflection using two mirrors? Is the size of each reflection, 75% of the previous, at each next stage of reflection down to as far as we can measure?

I was just going to have a moan until I seen the second part of your answer that I agree with completely. But yes there is a lot of "conjecture", which I hope and believe will one day become fact.

Math again? first dark energy was created to make the "math fit", second we do not understand "this dark energy", Now we have its "homogeneous and isotopic" again to fit the math. But in certain places it is not, it is called "heterogeneous", it is either "homogeneous" or it isn't. ,

I see it the same as two passengers on a train walking from opposite ends of train, will meet in the middle how ever fast or in what direction the train is going.

Is this thread just going to be an extension of "crackpots in physics". I enjoy speculation posts, So do others by the post and reply count, PS sunshakers got some good posts in speculation, damn, I have used wrong account to post

I wondered if only one else plays with prisms, I have spent many years viewing television in 3d using two prisms, It gives me new dimensions to explore, and turns a plain 2d experience into 3d, when you master this technique you can play about with one or two prisms adding in refraction to black&white areas and different effects you pick up along the way. , One of my favourite things to view or science/cosmos programmes, New dimensions jump out at you, I now find it hard/dull to view television in any other way. Also music videos, they seem to be made for this type of viewing. I often take prisms out with me, they can bring a greater depth to almost anything I view. One of the side effects that happens now and again, I have yet been able to completely understand, It first started one night when i was holding these prisms up to my eyes and it felt like something was crawling on my face, I realized a continuous charge was coming out my fingers jumping to my face, I thought at first it may be static, but it is not a jolt it can continue for long periods in a continuous flow.

Very good, But then again this is a forum,We only come when we have that interest in science, We are not offering a paper for a peer review, Forums are a good place to test your ideas, and get feedback to where your theory/idea breaks down, Or what is needed to make your idea/theory testable. I take on all feedback given, which in turn sets me of exploring the details, I have learnt so much more since joining this forum, just by taking a interest in peoples posts, perhaps not joining in but still spending time to understand them through my own studies. I come to this forum to further my understanding, perhaps on topics that would never have have come to mind.

I am unsure about this, I see my model speeding up as dark energy overcomes the gravity pull of dark matter, I also see the dark energy dispersing evenly throughout universe, You are right until I can make predictions or propose a test this is all speculation, I will end this thread now until the time I or any one else can come up with predictions or tests. Before i sign off, I did have a thought and wondered if there was a way to work this out, As I believe virtual particles appear for somewhere in the order of 18 orders of magnitude shorter than 10 microseconds, If there was a way to work out their energy/mass compared to our universes and and turn those microseconds into years. Comparable to each scale?

Just because there is yet no way to test for this, it does not make it useless, As I see this as what may make up dark energy, which is 68% hypothetically the mass of "our universe" which we still know little about, whether dark energy may be wimp/universes that annihilate with anti wimps the product being neutrinos which may be the universes making up the wimps, with other strange particles/universes making up neutrinos, Each scale of universe/particle having a different energy field, together creating/expanding this field we call dark energy. Many ask how a universe can pop into existence, we may not understand how, but we do now that virtual particles do. Our universe "popped into existence", No different to virtual particles "popping into existence" because our universe may well be one. perhaps each universe expands until all dark matter as been expanded broken down by dark energy held together by a few filaments of dark matter, what is then left of matter stars/galaxies would be so far apart, looking from a distance would be hard to detect, for all sense and purpose would be a virtual particle, that eventually breaks down/comes in contact with an anti universe, becoming part of the background field, which the next scale universes expands within.

At one time our solar system was "defined" as the universe, then our "galaxy was defined as the universe", But with the multiverse growing in popularity, we will once again have to redefine the universe, or except our universe is but one of many in a multiverse.

I am proposing that "virtual particles" are composite particles(fields), But that does not mean they are not identical particles, or at least in measurements that would effect the "Pauli exclusion principle". This could be then said of the 1 universe, maybe each of these universes are all the same manifestation of our universe, Or as some like to believe there is a different universe for each decision we make where our paths split, These minute changes for each universe, should have no measurable effect on the Pauli exclusion principle.

Before i can answer this statement I will have to understand fermions/Pauli exclusion principle better than I do now., But what I gather at this time fermions cannot exist in the same location at the same time, This is how i was looking at virtual particles that annihilate each other, But I also believe Bosons can, plus certain Fermions behave like Bosons, I suppose it is down to what I am calling these "virtual particles, It is something I will have to read more upon. As for "testing", I must first look into how we test for these virtual particles, And understand better the results we already have. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in "all possible ways". It seems that testing for these virtual particles will be done with lasers "lasers that can concentrate about 1026 watts into a square centimetre" These lasers will push these "virtual particles" in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another. The first version of the laser could be built by 2015, but it could take a few years after that to complete upgrades necessary to reach 1026 per square centimetre. Came across this "physicists create antimatter tabletop gun" http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html What got me is that a blast from this gun just for 30 femtoseconds results in the production of "quadtrillions of positrons", numbers I relate from coming from particles within particles.

From what i gather from Jkemp, that without consciousness matter dwells in a undetermined state of probability, And energy and matter can only be know by probabilities. So without life/consciousness energy/matter is just a possibility.

I am treating it as QM, and beyond, to scales yet beyond our present understanding. I think we do live in a multi-verse, How this multi-verse works is still open to question, I have many thoughts on a multi-verses/fractal multi-verses, but with them all I see universe within universes, Virtual particles/universes popping into existence within our universe, but each of these virtual particles/universes will have Virtual particles/universes popping into existence within their universe etc etc. Not to scale

An "Emphasis", on imperfections of us and our universe