Path the Particle Takes Between Singularity and Final Matter - Split from Anharmonic Oscillator

[Kartazion]

 

"Dark matter can be explained by the quantum vacuum of quantum chromodynamics" Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji.

 

Here is the path taken by the particle between singularity and final matter:

In the case of this deduction and reasoning, the dark matter must be expressed only with a particle at very high speed.
Dark matter is only an addition of the convergence of the quantum vacuum at a point (an area).
The density of dark matter is proportional to the convergence of space towards this singularity.

 

Reference: 
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120416-anharmonic-oscillator/
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/120749-quantum-chromodynamics-with-a-single-particle-in-motion/

 

[swansont]

Where did that quote cone from?

Where did that diagram come from?

High speed with respect to what?

What is the “convergence of the quantum vacuum“?

What is the mathematical expression for “convergence of space”?

[Kartazion]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Where did that quote cone from?

From a conference by Gilles Cohen-Tannoudji.
I have a digital archive in French if necessary.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

Where did that diagram come from?

The diagram comes from me. Indeed according to the principle of the anharmonic oscillator with which I work,
I wish to claim that the particle oscillates between singularity and corelated matter.
Between two is the flow of the particle which is only the quantum vacuum.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

High speed with respect to what?

The speed of the particle according to the potential energy.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

What is the “convergence of the quantum vacuum“?

Dark matter is then only an addition of all the quantum vacuum space to a smaller area.
This area can be reduced and reach a higher density. This could be compared to condensed matter.

 

8 hours ago, swansont said:

What is the mathematical expression for “convergence of space”?

I do not know yet. Here is what I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_convergence_(Hilbert_space)

 

Edited July 3, 2020 by Kartazion

[swansont]

There’s no physics here. This doesn’t meet the expectations we have of speculations. We need a model, evidence. I don’t see any of that.

[Kartazion]

Ok. Thank you.

Edited July 4, 2020 by Kartazion

[Kartazion]

On 7/3/2020 at 1:09 PM, swansont said:

Where did that quote cone from?

I want to clarify that the quote comes from the adviser to the director at the Atomic Energy Commission (CEA) 

Do you agree with what he says?

[swansont]

You haven’t provided the source (i.e. document/transcript)/ context of the quote. 

[Kartazion]

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.00460v10

[swansont]

It’s a proposal, not accepted physics. 

[Kartazion]

The initial question was what do you think about it.

[swansont]

10 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The initial question was what do you think about it.

I don’t have sufficient familiarity with the physics to have an opinion.

[Kartazion]

4 hours ago, swansont said:

I don’t have sufficient familiarity with the physics to have an opinion.

Here is an approach by the Cosmological Constant https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.08317

 

 

 

With the Oscillator: 

 

[Mordred]

16 hours ago, Kartazion said:

The initial question was what do you think about it.

Rather pointless article. It didn't apply a single QCD formula. The formulas it does apply are well known FLRW metric formulas involving the equations of state of Lambda and DM.

We cross posted the second article isn't much better. Treating Lambda as a force or as negative pressure isn't particularly accurate as lambda doesn't have a potential gradient. So there would not be any net force in a particular direction.

Pressure under GR has flux.

Neither of these articles particularly help you defend your position with regards to the OP.

 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Mordred

[Kartazion]

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It didn't apply a single QCD formula.

The formula of QCD does not change.

31 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The formulas it does apply are well known FLRW metric formulas involving the equations of state of Lambda and DM.

So dark matter can be explained by the quantum vacuum of quantum chromodynamics.

32 minutes ago, Mordred said:

We cross posted the second article isn't much better. Treating Lambda as a force or as negative pressure isn't particularly accurate as lambda doesn't have a potential gradient. So there would not be any net force in a particular direction.

Pressure under GR has flux.

The pressure?

34 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Neither of these articles particularly help you defend your position with regards to the OP.

Yes it is rather the reverse. What is the difference between:

On 5/4/2020 at 6:30 PM, Kartazion said:

I was based on the quantum perturbation of the ground state.

Indeed by the energy of the disturbance and the oscillation of the flow at the bottom of the well, does not allow the particle to fall under the well.
- In quantum: the attenuation of the perturbation allows the sliding by tunnel effect of the passage of the particle under the well.
- In classic: if there is an attenuation of the kinetics at the bottom of the well, then the particle falls under the well.

 

and:

Case for axion origin of dark matter gains traction

?

 

[Strange]

23 minutes ago, Kartazion said:

Yes it is rather the reverse. What is the difference between:

!

Moderator Note

One is science and one isn't. You already have one thread that has rambled on incoherently for 11 pages. I don't think we need another one.