Theory of Everything "Prime Mechanics"

[Mordred]

The truth is no matter how good a mathematical proof may be Observational evidence can easily Trump it. A math proof shows feasibility.

 Without seeing your entire model it's impossible to tell whether it can perform everything you claim. Including DE and DM. I'm also unclear how your handling vectors and Spinor relations which are particularly important with regards to numerous aspects of a particle.

I do know the Rheimann zeta function can be used but I have only read a few articles applying it to spin statistics where the majority of the articles didn't cover the Dirac field for fermionic spins.

Don't be offended if I stick with the mainstream physics  after 35 years studying and applying it. It's never failed me for any of the work I do.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The truth is no matter how good a mathematical proof may be Observational evidence can easily Trump it. A math proof shows feasibility.

Wow.... finally.... brings back memories. 

You should deserve a star 🌟 

Why? I read all the moderators comments and silly lurkers and useless comments here and they still have no clue what a mathematical proof is. 

My math is 100%, just deadly correct. But it's doesn't matter! 

As long if the observation evidence prove it and back it up. 

I published Pime mechanics, March 14 2023, you know saying over the top stuff, gravity created everything, light ech.....

3 weeks later, "physicist discover that gravity created light."

...and I'm like, ..... seriously... what the heck, where's my noble prize. So, now I'm like okay, Prime Mechanics has showcase a appetizer. Let's see 👀 

Earliest reports is first week of April. I haven't seen any reports earlier on Google. 

 

[Ghideon]

37 minutes ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

I published Pime mechanics, March 14 2023, you know saying over the top stuff, gravity created everything, light ech..... 3 weeks later, "physicist discover that gravity created light."

...and I'm like, ..... seriously... what the heck, where's my noble prize. So, now I'm like okay, Prime Mechanics has showcase a appetizer. Let's see 👀 

Earliest reports is first week of April. I haven't seen any reports earlier on Google. 

 

Google returns references to the paper "Graviton to Photon Conversion via Parametric Resonance" by Robert Brandenberger, Paola C. M. Delgado, Alexander Ganz, Chunshan Lin, first version submitted to arXiv on 18 May 2022. 

 

[Baron d'Holbach]

@Ghideon

Obviously Prime mechanics wasn't written in 5 days.

Worked on it from 2007 to 2023. Another reason if you read my post I absurdly state my position with authority because people in the science community love stealing other people work! 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents

Because of this, scientists and people in academia are crooks, sadly. 

So let it be known, Prime Mechanics is published, stated and posted.

Don't worry, I wrote the theory of everything. There are way more discoveries in gravity alone that is shocking, just re-read my post only, everyone else is pointless and you see I am predicting, claim, stating over 100 things.

Light from gravity is 1 out of 💯 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

I sincerely hope your not trying to claim the process mentioned in that paper as your own idea and claim they stole it from you.

 The idea that gravity waves can affect the EM field to generate photons as a result has literally been around for decades. Nearly as long as gravity waves were initially proposed.

 I've read numerous papers a couple of decades ago that described the very same process. Copeland however had an inflationary model built describing a very similar process published in the late 60's 

[pzkpfw]

What's the deal with "let it be known"?

It sounds like some kind of (magic) incantation like the free men of the land use in "legal" contexts.

[Baron d'Holbach]

@Mordred

Oh no that's not what I was saying at all.

I did not even realized about the paper or its claims. Mine are my own independent findings. I'm sure you have notice. Because it's absurd right 

What I was saying is, my work was done, and the paper and news articles supports it 😆 

My ideas came from https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis

I was just messing around. untill i fell into the rabbit hole and started connecting everything like a puzzle. 

 

11 minutes ago, pzkpfw said:

let it be known

Just a old saying from a old man I knew. 

"If you discover something, let it be known, because surely it will be discover by another."

[Mordred]

Well I'm glad your not attempting that claim. Considering back when I was an undergrad my primary interest was processes that could lead to particle production both virtual and real. I literally lost count of the number of variations I've read over the years.

 Lol for that matter the creation/annihilation operators of QFT are well designed to predict the probable number density of states given any field energy level for any particle via the relevant  wave equations included in the formula for either bosons or fermions.

There is nothing new about the idea. It's literally part and parcel with mainstream physics.

Edit most ppl nowadays don't even remember that Parker radiation involved particle production from the curvature terms of spacetime. Nowadays it's used in MRIs and x Ray machines.

Edited May 15, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Edit most ppl nowadays don't even remember that Parker radiation involved particle production from the curvature terms of spacetime. Nowadays it's used in MRIs and x Ray machines.

Yeah, this is something what I am trying to communicate but it seems I am doing it wrong. Maybe in other sites and forums I might have to strictly focus on this approach. 

I want to say, their might be new approaches, and new way of calculating, proofing and claiming by using other math methods in solving a problem like GUT for example. 

Using Zeta, Prime Numbers, Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer Conjecture, in finding ideas, hidden meaning in physics. A connection between branches. And using these methods, we can discover a different approach to tackle these extremely complex ideas. 

I stated I have, but others should incorporate wild off branches into their theory and new ideas will magically connect and make sense. 

[Mordred]

There is nothing wrong with different approaches to any physics model. Every approach can and often does reveal details previous approaches do not.

 You might note I never once stated your theory crazy or wildly imaginative.. I simply wanted to see if you had the ability to accurately model your ideas. This is the primary reason I come to forums. To help others learn.

 I'm knowledgeable enough in physics to research any questions on a specific model on my own without any help or aid. Just as I can accurately generate my own models of any physics related process. Though 95 percent of the time I can prove new models I generate in error or insufficient to to add to the physics community.

 I have a few models on Higgs in cosmology applications I'm still working on and awaiting for better research in the metastability regime.

Though I would recommend only claim what you can mathematically show via a mathematical proof when requested. Far too often posters and even professional physicist state their model can solve such and such, but then papers don't include the relevant solutions with the mathematics. DE and DM claims are very common  yet most times they can only provide mainstream related formulas to those two entities and simply show compatibility to model what is already known about them 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

the metastability regime.

pg.40 I wrote on this. Well, my approach is different of course because I am building a system, my Prime Field. 

Ill post a few pages here. Just a random section of me talking about the meta state. 

A dimensional manifold goes through a phase transformation. A self-interaction within itself that discrete a unit, a manifold that builds upon itself as a layer field. The dimensionality of the manifold goes through a phase transition from a 2-dimensional manifold to a 3-dimensional manifold, which is a process the Prime Field goes through. This process leads to a compactified pressurization field that is geometrically smooth at all points in which this is a continuous spacetime process.
Prime Field can go through many phase transitions. A phase transition is a change in the state of a system from one phase to another, from a global minimum state, thermal state, metastable state, and finally, to the first excited state. It can be described by ‘order parameters,’ which are thermodynamic variables that describe the different types of symmetry breaking that occur in the system. The transition from a disordered state to an ordered state is a phase transition. The Higgs Mechanism is one of the examples of such a phase transition, where the Higgs field breaks the symmetry of the standard model giving masses to the particles. A few examples of phase transitions down below:
Global minimum state (Ground state) to thermal state: A global minimum state is a state in which the system’s energy is at its lowest possible value. It is the state in which all of the system’s degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy positions. It is considered to be the most stable state of the system. A system can transition to its global minimum state through various processes such as cooling, minimization of energy, or relaxation of the system. As the temperature of a system increases, it can transition from its global minimum state to a thermal state, where the energy of the system increases due to thermal fluctuations.
Thermal state to metastable state: A metastable state is a long-lived state of a system that is not the true ground state but has a much longer lifetime than other excited states. As a system cools down from a thermal state, it can transition to a metastable state. A thermal state is a state of a system that is in thermal equilibrium with its environment at a certain temperature. A system in thermal equilibrium is in a state of maximum entropy, which means that its energy is distributed among its many degrees of freedom in such a way that the probability of finding the system in any particular energy state is given by the Boltzmann distribution.
Metastable state to ground state: Metastable states, also known as meta-stable states, are long-lived states of a system that are not the true ground state but have a much longer lifetime than other excited states. They are often called “local minima” of the energy landscape. The ground state is the state of lowest energy in which a system can exist when all of its degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy positions. As a system continues to cool down or change its parameters, it can transition from a metastable state to a ground state.
Ground state to first excited state: The ground state is the lowest-energy state of a system when all of its degrees of freedom are in their lowest-energy positions. On the other hand, the first excited state is the next lowest-energy state of the system, which is different from its ground state. It is a state of the system with the lowest energy among all the excited states. As the energy of the system increases, for example, by applying an external field or increasing the temperature, it can transition from the ground state to the first excited state. In the case of a particle, the first excited state is the state in which the particle has a non-zero momentum, and in the case of a field, it is the state of the Field that has a non-zero energy and is different from the vacuum state. The energy of the first excited state is always greater than the energy of the ground state, and the difference between the two is known as the excitation energy. In quantum mechanics, the first excited state is the first energy level of a system that is higher than the ground state. The energy of the first excited state is always greater than the energy of the ground state, and the difference between the two is known as the excitation energy. The behavior of systems with a continuous symmetry breaking phase transition can be expressed as a polynomial function of the order parameter (a measure of the degree of symmetry breaking) and its derivatives. The coefficients of the polynomial are known as Landau-Ginzburg coefficients. 
Let us try to explain this with an abridged version of equations to get a quick understanding. 

 

[Mordred]

If your applying Landeau coefficients with regards to Higgs metastability with phase transitions involving electroweak symmetry breaking this brief article might interest you.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1911.08893

If so his references will likely lead to other related studies in this methodology

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

That's a good paper, once I read the "The naturalness problem." He is onto something.  He didn't solve it thou... I was not accepting him to, he would of won a Nobel prize for it, if did.

But I have to say, a symmetry that can absorb and distribute energy across the field is the key. 

This is my approach in the book with different approaches. 

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[Mordred]

Thought that might interest you. As an avid reader of numerous models over the years If I have learned anything it's that any applicable mathematical method can be used. One can often find literature showing its already been attempted or applied.

The methodology I typically use for second order phase transition of Higgs I typically approach it utilizing QFT as it is a second order model. Quantum effects in first order one can use QM.

 With Higgs the research aspects I'm waiting directly involve the Higgs cross sections.

Higgs cross sections

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow f\bar{f})=\frac{G_Fm_f^2m_HN_c}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}(1-4m^2_f/m^2_H)^{3/2}\]

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow W^+ W^-)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_W}{32\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_w+3a_W^2)\]

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow ZZ)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_z}{64\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_Z+3a_Z^2)\]

with the CKMS matrix and the relevant Weinberg angles. Which will directly relate to mass term precision.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[Mordred]

I am curious if you've ever considered Wilson loops coefficients ? I honestly believe it would be a useful addition. Particularly as it also involves Landau coefficients as well as Rheimann zeta functions.

Here is an example paper 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1809.06787

The primary advantage is that the LHC and Atlas datasets also employ them for their channels with regards to relevant Breit Wigner cross sections ie the cross sections above for Higgs I gave are in Breit Wigner form.

 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

As an avid reader of numerous models over the years If I have learned anything it's that any applicable mathematical method can be used.

Yes, this is the key. This was what I was trying to express with my Prime Land.

But for me was a multi-level connection. Not only mathematical methods, but concepts and even philosophy. A good philosophical approach is good because you can twist and manipulate a math methods to strange areas of connections. 

Here in Pg.82, as an example I am taking ideas and combing them. Its crazy because with this approach you can clearly checkmate yourself but if you don't a whole new world will be created.  

Creating a grand system. 

 

3 hours ago, Mordred said:

Wilson loops coefficients

No I haven't. I think you are after a particular model (models on Higgs?) and my model is strictly Gravity.

I just used Yang Mills instead, what I needed to solve was the Mass Gap, the Vacuum state and transformations with my system. Figuring out the distribution, keeping a transformative invariant transformation within each stages. 

So, is your Model strictly based on Higgs? Are you trying to find Dark Matter or a Phase Transition?

Edited May 16, 2023 by Baron d'Holbach

[MJ kihara]

Just a few questions concerning your model being a theory of Everything;Yes/No

1-Does you model describe what a photons is composed of?

2-Does your model describe precisely how gravity creates light in a manner that a layman can understand?

3-Does your model explained clearly the rotation curve of the Galaxy??

4-Does you model desscribe the conditions that might be inside a black hole?

5-Does you model explained the conditions after big bang, given recent research that there could have been massive galaxies a few millions years after big bang?

6-Does you model acknowledge FTL particles?

7-Does your model reconcile physics ideas with the laws of evolution(biology) i.e what leads to evolution?

[Mordred]

4 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Yes, this is the key. This was what I was trying to express with my Prime Land.

But for me was a multi-level connection. Not only mathematical methods, but concepts and even philosophy. A good philosophical approach is good because you can twist and manipulate a math methods to strange areas of connections. 

Here in Pg.82, as an example I am taking ideas and combing them. Its crazy because with this approach you can clearly checkmate yourself but if you don't a whole new world will be created.  

 

So, is your Model strictly based on Higgs? Are you trying to find Dark Matter or a Phase Transition?

Specific timings, number densities of the SM particle thermal equilibrium dropout stages and subsequently BB nucleosynthesis for metalicity percentages of hydrogen, deuterium, lithium. In essence updating the actual values of each stage. From 10^-43 seconds to surface of last scattering up to z=1100. 

4 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

Yes, this is the key. This was what I was trying to express with my Prime Land.

But for me was a multi-level connection. Not only mathematical methods, but concepts and even philosophy. A good philosophical approach is good because you can twist and manipulate a math methods to strange areas of connections. 

Here in Pg.82, as an example I am taking ideas and combing them. Its crazy because with this approach you can clearly checkmate yourself but if you don't a whole new world will be created.  

Creating a grand system. 

 

 

Ok that helps clarify a few details. The Higgs related details I'm waiting for is directly related to finer precision on mass values which directly correlate to thermal equilibrium dropout values 

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[MigL]

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Just a few questions concerning your model being a theory of Everything

Just an observation, but it seems to me Mordred and the Baron are not discussing the Physics of a 'Theory of Everything', but rather the mathematical tools needed to 'build' models representing the Physics.

IOW, instead of discussing the merits of a 3/12 roof pitch, they are discussing what type of hammer is needed to build it.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Just an observation, but it seems to me Mordred and the Baron are not discussing the Physics of a 'Theory of Everything', but rather the mathematical tools needed to 'build' models representing the Physics.

IOW, instead of discussing the merits of a 3/12 roof pitch, they are discussing what type of hammer is needed to build it.

Very accurate assessment love the analogy. At the same time I'm getting a handle on the methods Baron used instead of  being forced to cut and paste pages and pages of details from the work he has already done.

Edited May 16, 2023 by Mordred

[Baron d'Holbach]

10 hours ago, Mordred said:

Specific timings, number densities of the SM particle thermal equilibrium dropout stages and subsequently BB nucleosynthesis for metalicity percentages of hydrogen, deuterium, lithium. In essence updating the actual values of each stage. From 10^-43 seconds to surface of last scattering up to z=1100. 

It seems like you want that Nobel Prize, huh… I know what you are up to. 

It’s funny, your model is the possibility of a standardized approach for the theory of everything.

And my model is an impossibility of a type 3 alien civilization of the theory of everything. 

Good, I went my route, as my discoveries still blow me away, as I can not get it out of my head.  

Well, people will hate this; it’s tattooed into my brain, 
“Gravity is a process that begins with small, discrete bits that transform by fluxing, dragging, and decaying onto themselves, generating and creating invariant manifolds. This continuous process involves a combination of 11 dimensions, spins, heat bath, positioning, and clustering at ½, between 0 and 1, which leads to a densification at this region. As the densification occurs, mathematical deterministic fundamental, dimensional constants are formed that led the way to the center of the equilibrium point, which is a point of infinity towards s=1. This process generates a negative force from the positive, leading to the creation of a physical system where our current existence is located, in a 4 Dimensional flat surface universe.”

So that’s my model, written in many ways in this thread now. 

Okay, now your model starts 😊

Once the creation of the physical system is created, aka Big Bang (Aether), we can figure out all the things you want to find out.

Big Bang (t = 0 seconds) - the initial singularity, a state of infinite density and temperature.

Planck Era (t < 10^(-43) seconds) – The supposed origin of Time. (It’s wrong, Gravity motion is Time) 

Inflationary Epoch (t < 10^(-32) seconds) – Explains the uniformity and structure of the universe.

Particle Era (10^(-32) seconds < t < 10^(-12) seconds): – Hot, dense plasma state. 

Nucleosynthesis (1 second < t < a few minutes): – The creation of LIGHT. 

And the rest is amateur hour… 
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: (1 second to a few minutes): This is where Gravity creates light. It’s not 380,000 years later like the old traditional idea. 
What Prime Mechanic is stating, and the new discoveries that Gravity created light can be placed here. People must take this seriously. Prime mechanics is not playing around. So a reformation of thinking must be applied in my opinion. So, with the Specific timings, number densities are highly skeptical unless you find out the exact methods and procedures of Gravity’s motions and actions and transformation in creating stuff. 

I hate that people are stealing my thunder  , but they could never say my model how I said it! 😊 - https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a43567763/gravity-can-create-light/

 

[Baron d'Holbach]

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Just a few questions concerning your model being a theory of Everything;Yes/No

Yes, it is an original contribution to the theory of everything. It is about the origin of Gravity, the Final Relativity, and the connection to all ideas as 1. 

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

1-Does you model describe what a photons is composed of?

Prime Mechanic describes all particles as gravity pockets. This means all are excited state points. A density point, a marker for locality, and a place for pin-point extraction for potential energy. Overall, all particles are not waves or points, its, drum roll, Elemental Gravity.

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

2-Does your model describe precisely how gravity creates light in a manner that a layman can understand?

I wrote this 10 different ways here in the thread. Yes, of course, 😊 , its technically similar to the news articles that are floating on Google and stealing my thunder. Gravity moves onto itself, generates, and creates. 

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

3-Does your model explained clearly the rotation curve of the Galaxy??

Yes, on substack, I drew a diagram (in the book too), a picture, a massive black hole in the center, a Dark matter halo around Galaxy, and all objects are in a constant straight flat trajectory fall towards the center as the center increases. 

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

4-Does you model desscribe the conditions that might be inside a black hole?

Yes, 
pg. 158, “Let us move on to Dimension 1 to keep the Dimension flowing.”
Here I use math to penetrate through a black hole. With everything said from pg.1 to 158, I concluded that we live in a finite, infinite-limit universe. We can go beyond a black hole, I technically stated. 
 

Let me state, Blockholes are part of Elemental Gravity, it is gravity itself as a dense deformation.

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

5-Does you model explained the conditions after big bang, given recent research that there could have been massive galaxies a few millions years after big bang?

Conditions, yes, not for the specific original Galaxy. The first Galaxy was a gas and dust. 

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

6-Does you model acknowledge FTL particles?

No, No such thing. Prime Mechanic disagrees with String Theory, Geometric Unity, A Big Graph, M-theory, E8 theory, and any many-world interpretation. Did not write about FTL, Warm-holes, multiple existences, and multiple world ideas. 

This stuff I consider poison and a waste of time. All anyone needs to know is Gravity. 

15 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

7-Does your model reconcile physics ideas with the laws of evolution(biology) i.e what leads to evolution?

I specialized in Darwin; this is my bread and butter. Page 205 to 252 I explain the origin of single-cell organisms and the transition to muti-cell. An in-depth technical detail process of how a single cell can be created from nothing! Move into the ocean and continue onwards to fish, mammals, dinosaurs, and our ancient primates (Platyrrhini and Catarrhini) and ancestors. 
Chapter 2 I explain the origin of Religion, proving it is Earth-Based
Chapter 3 I explain the origin of Religion pt.2, as a human creation. 

Your next question: More?
Afterward, I explain the tools and applications of prime mechanics and build an artificial Robot. A Terminator. 
I build the brains, the heart, and the materials that need to be used. I posted this last page on the bottom in a picture read. 

If you are not well verse in the discussion above or Prime mechanics, that stuff will be too foreign, because I am applying all concepts, ideas, connections', maths https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langlands_program  in this.

This is the key to the theory of everything. Must apply all ideas as 1. 

Afterwards, 
Explain, GEM can create Gravity force fields, Prime Computers (Beyond Quantum mechanic computers) 
Explain, for predictions and warnings, how to reach a type 3 civilization and the warning of monstrous, dangerous alien species in our universe and conclude stating Gravity is the host of host. 
 

[joigus]

On 5/12/2023 at 3:55 AM, Baron d&#x27;Holbach said:

Gravity is the beginning of the beginning, the emergent out of itself. It is a fundamental force that plays the main role in shaping the Universe as we know it.

This strongly reminds me of Aristotle's nóesis noéseos, St. Anselm's argument for the existence of God, and many other similar tautological, circular platitudes that lead nowhere.

Gravity does not influence the chemical bond, for example. It shapes what it shapes. The shape of the Earth, the course of a river, and so on... It doesn't shape the energy levels of hydrogen, for example.

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, Baron d'Holbach said:

It seems like you want that Nobel Prize, huh… I know what you are up to. 

It’s funny, your model is the possibility of a standardized approach for the theory of everything.

And my model is an impossibility of a type 3 alien civilization of the theory of everything. 

Good, I went my route, as my discoveries still blow me away, as I can not get it out of my head.  

Well, people will hate this; it’s tattooed into my brain, 
“Gravity is a process that begins with small, discrete bits that transform by fluxing, dragging, and decaying onto themselves, generating and creating invariant manifolds. This continuous process involves a combination of 11 dimensions, spins, heat bath, positioning, and clustering at ½, between 0 and 1, which leads to a densification at this region. As the densification occurs, mathematical deterministic fundamental, dimensional constants are formed that led the way to the center of the equilibrium point, which is a point of infinity towards s=1. This process generates a negative force from the positive, leading to the creation of a physical system where our current existence is located, in a 4 Dimensional flat surface universe.”

So that’s my model, written in many ways in this thread now. 

Okay, now your model starts 😊

Once the creation of the physical system is created, aka Big Bang (Aether), we can figure out all the things you want to find out.

Big Bang (t = 0 seconds) - the initial singularity, a state of infinite density and temperature.

Planck Era (t < 10^(-43) seconds) – The supposed origin of Time. (It’s wrong, Gravity motion is Time) 

Inflationary Epoch (t < 10^(-32) seconds) – Explains the uniformity and structure of the universe.

Particle Era (10^(-32) seconds < t < 10^(-12) seconds): – Hot, dense plasma state. 

Nucleosynthesis (1 second < t < a few minutes): – The creation of LIGHT. 

And the rest is amateur hour… 
Big Bang Nucleosynthesis: (1 second to a few minutes): This is where Gravity creates light. It’s not 380,000 years later like the old traditional idea. 
What Prime Mechanic is stating, and the new discoveries that Gravity created light can be placed here. People must take this seriously. Prime mechanics is not playing around. So a reformation of thinking must be applied in my opinion. So, with the Specific timings, number densities are highly skeptical unless you find out the exact methods and procedures of Gravity’s motions and actions and transformation in creating stuff. 

I hate that people are stealing my thunder  , but they could never say my model how I said it! 😊 - https://www.popularmechanics.com/space/deep-space/a43567763/gravity-can-create-light/

 

Trust me there will be very little comparison between your model and ideas and mine lol. Everything in my models use the standardized physics methodologies. I didn't have to create a single formula beyond deriving the elements I require out of them from the mathematical proofs of the existing formulas.

These threads I have been using as a sort of whiteboard with regards to some of the formulas I am deploying.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128332-early-universe-nucleosynthesis/

Orion and I spent some time breaking apart the Covariant derivative form of the SM Langrangian mainly to cross check its validity while Orion worked on the relativity portion. 

wish he was still around as he excelled at applying Maxwell Boltzmann applications.

one of the tools I will be using for cross check accuracy is

\[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&Temp(K) \\ \hline 2.00e+4&1.86e-6&3.49e-6&4.62e+1&5.45e+4\\ \hline 1.73e+4&2.45e-6&4.62e-6&4.62e+1&4.71e+4\\ \hline 1.49e+4&3.23e-6&6.10e-6&4.62e+1&4.07e+4\\ \hline 1.29e+4&4.25e-6&8.04e-6&4.61e+1&3.52e+4\\ \hline 1.12e+4&5.60e-6&1.06e-5&4.61e+1&3.04e+4\\ \hline 9.66e+3&7.37e-6&1.39e-5&4.61e+1&2.63e+4\\ \hline 8.35e+3&9.70e-6&1.83e-5&4.61e+1&2.27e+4\\ \hline 7.21e+3&1.28e-5&2.39e-5&4.61e+1&1.97e+4\\ \hline 6.24e+3&1.68e-5&3.12e-5&4.60e+1&1.70e+4\\ \hline 5.39e+3&2.20e-5&4.07e-5&4.60e+1&1.47e+4\\ \hline 4.66e+3&2.87e-5&5.29e-5&4.60e+1&1.27e+4\\ \hline 4.03e+3&3.75e-5&6.85e-5&4.59e+1&1.10e+4\\ \hline 3.48e+3&4.89e-5&8.86e-5&4.59e+1&9.49e+3\\ \hline 3.01e+3&6.36e-5&1.14e-4&4.58e+1&8.21e+3\\ \hline 2.60e+3&8.25e-5&1.47e-4&4.58e+1&7.09e+3\\ \hline 2.25e+3&1.07e-4&1.88e-4&4.57e+1&6.13e+3\\ \hline 1.94e+3&1.38e-4&2.41e-4&4.57e+1&5.30e+3\\ \hline 1.68e+3&1.78e-4&3.08e-4&4.56e+1&4.58e+3\\ \hline 1.45e+3&2.28e-4&3.92e-4&4.55e+1&3.96e+3\\ \hline 1.26e+3&2.93e-4&4.98e-4&4.54e+1&3.42e+3\\ \hline 1.09e+3&3.75e-4&6.31e-4&4.53e+1&2.96e+3\\ \hline 9.38e+2&4.78e-4&7.98e-4&4.52e+1&2.56e+3\\ \hline 8.11e+2&6.09e-4&1.01e-3&4.51e+1&2.21e+3\\ \hline 7.01e+2&7.74e-4&1.27e-3&4.50e+1&1.91e+3\\ \hline 6.06e+2&9.83e-4&1.60e-3&4.49e+1&1.65e+3\\ \hline 5.24e+2&1.24e-3&2.01e-3&4.47e+1&1.43e+3\\ \hline 4.52e+2&1.57e-3&2.53e-3&4.46e+1&1.24e+3\\ \hline 3.91e+2&1.99e-3&3.17e-3&4.44e+1&1.07e+3\\ \hline 3.38e+2&2.50e-3&3.97e-3&4.42e+1&9.23e+2\\ \hline 2.92e+2&3.15e-3&4.97e-3&4.40e+1&7.98e+2\\ \hline 2.52e+2&3.96e-3&6.22e-3&4.38e+1&6.90e+2\\ \hline 2.18e+2&4.98e-3&7.77e-3&4.35e+1&5.97e+2\\ \hline 1.88e+2&6.25e-3&9.71e-3&4.33e+1&5.16e+2\\ \hline 1.63e+2&7.83e-3&1.21e-2&4.30e+1&4.46e+2\\ \hline 1.40e+2&9.81e-3&1.51e-2&4.27e+1&3.85e+2\\ \hline 1.21e+2&1.23e-2&1.89e-2&4.24e+1&3.33e+2\\ \hline 1.05e+2&1.53e-2&2.35e-2&4.20e+1&2.88e+2\\ \hline 9.04e+1&1.92e-2&2.94e-2&4.16e+1&2.49e+2\\ \hline 7.80e+1&2.40e-2&3.66e-2&4.12e+1&2.15e+2\\ \hline 6.73e+1&2.99e-2&4.56e-2&4.08e+1&1.86e+2\\ \hline 5.80e+1&3.74e-2&5.68e-2&4.03e+1&1.61e+2\\ \hline 5.00e+1&4.66e-2&7.07e-2&3.98e+1&1.39e+2\\ \hline 4.31e+1&5.81e-2&8.81e-2&3.93e+1&1.20e+2\\ \hline 3.71e+1&7.25e-2&1.10e-1&3.87e+1&1.04e+2\\ \hline 3.20e+1&9.03e-2&1.37e-1&3.81e+1&8.98e+1\\ \hline 2.75e+1&1.13e-1&1.70e-1&3.74e+1&7.76e+1\\ \hline 2.36e+1&1.40e-1&2.12e-1&3.66e+1&6.71e+1\\ \hline 2.03e+1&1.75e-1&2.63e-1&3.59e+1&5.80e+1\\ \hline 1.74e+1&2.18e-1&3.28e-1&3.50e+1&5.02e+1\\ \hline 1.49e+1&2.71e-1&4.08e-1&3.41e+1&4.34e+1\\ \hline 1.28e+1&3.37e-1&5.08e-1&3.31e+1&3.75e+1\\ \hline 1.09e+1&4.20e-1&6.32e-1&3.21e+1&3.24e+1\\ \hline 9.28e+0&5.23e-1&7.86e-1&3.09e+1&2.80e+1\\ \hline 7.89e+0&6.51e-1&9.78e-1&2.97e+1&2.42e+1\\ \hline 6.68e+0&8.10e-1&1.22e+0&2.84e+1&2.09e+1\\ \hline 5.64e+0&1.01e+0&1.51e+0&2.70e+1&1.81e+1\\ \hline 4.74e+0&1.25e+0&1.88e+0&2.55e+1&1.56e+1\\ \hline 3.96e+0&1.56e+0&2.33e+0&2.38e+1&1.35e+1\\ \hline 3.29e+0&1.94e+0&2.88e+0&2.21e+1&1.17e+1\\ \hline 2.71e+0&2.40e+0&3.56e+0&2.02e+1&1.01e+1\\ \hline 2.21e+0&2.98e+0&4.38e+0&1.83e+1&8.74e+0\\ \hline 1.77e+0&3.69e+0&5.35e+0&1.62e+1&7.55e+0\\ \hline 1.40e+0&4.55e+0&6.49e+0&1.39e+1&6.53e+0\\ \hline 1.07e+0&5.58e+0&7.79e+0&1.16e+1&5.64e+0\\ \hline 7.91e-1&6.82e+0&9.19e+0&9.25e+0&4.88e+0\\ \hline 5.48e-1&8.27e+0&1.07e+1&6.85e+0&4.22e+0\\ \hline 3.38e-1&9.92e+0&1.21e+1&4.47e+0&3.65e+0\\ \hline 1.57e-1&1.18e+1&1.34e+1&2.16e+0&3.15e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.44e+1&0.00e+0&2.73e+0\\ \hline -1.36e-1&1.60e+1&1.53e+1&2.03e+0&2.36e+0\\ \hline -2.48e-1&1.81e+1&1.59e+1&3.79e+0&2.05e+0\\ \hline -3.46e-1&2.04e+1&1.64e+1&5.37e+0&1.78e+0\\ \hline -4.31e-1&2.27e+1&1.67e+1&6.77e+0&1.55e+0\\ \hline -5.05e-1&2.50e+1&1.69e+1&8.02e+0&1.35e+0\\ \hline -5.69e-1&2.74e+1&1.71e+1&9.11e+0&1.17e+0\\ \hline -6.25e-1&2.98e+1&1.72e+1&1.01e+1&1.02e+0\\ \hline -6.74e-1&3.22e+1&1.72e+1&1.09e+1&8.88e-1\\ \hline -7.16e-1&3.46e+1&1.73e+1&1.16e+1&7.73e-1\\ \hline -7.53e-1&3.70e+1&1.73e+1&1.23e+1&6.72e-1\\ \hline -7.85e-1&3.94e+1&1.73e+1&1.28e+1&5.85e-1\\ \hline -8.13e-1&4.18e+1&1.73e+1&1.33e+1&5.09e-1\\ \hline -8.38e-1&4.43e+1&1.74e+1&1.37e+1&4.42e-1\\ \hline -8.59e-1&4.67e+1&1.74e+1&1.41e+1&3.85e-1\\ \hline -8.77e-1&4.91e+1&1.74e+1&1.44e+1&3.35e-1\\ \hline -8.93e-1&5.15e+1&1.74e+1&1.47e+1&2.91e-1\\ \hline -9.07e-1&5.39e+1&1.74e+1&1.49e+1&2.53e-1\\ \hline -9.19e-1&5.64e+1&1.74e+1&1.52e+1&2.20e-1\\ \hline -9.30e-1&5.88e+1&1.74e+1&1.53e+1&1.92e-1\\ \hline -9.39e-1&6.12e+1&1.74e+1&1.55e+1&1.67e-1\\ \hline -9.47e-1&6.36e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&1.45e-1\\ \hline -9.54e-1&6.60e+1&1.74e+1&1.58e+1&1.26e-1\\ \hline -9.60e-1&6.85e+1&1.74e+1&1.59e+1&1.10e-1\\ \hline -9.65e-1&7.09e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&9.55e-2\\ \hline -9.70e-1&7.33e+1&1.74e+1&1.60e+1&8.31e-2\\ \hline -9.73e-1&7.57e+1&1.74e+1&1.61e+1&7.23e-2\\ \hline -9.77e-1&7.81e+1&1.74e+1&1.62e+1&6.29e-2\\ \hline -9.80e-1&8.06e+1&1.74e+1&1.62e+1&5.47e-2\\ \hline -9.83e-1&8.30e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&4.76e-2\\ \hline -9.85e-1&8.54e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&4.14e-2\\ \hline -9.87e-1&8.78e+1&1.74e+1&1.63e+1&3.60e-2\\ \hline -9.89e-1&9.02e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&3.13e-2\\ \hline -9.90e-1&9.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&2.73e-2\\ \hline \end{array}}\]

Jorrie and Cuthberd must be adding features I will have to contact them its not allowing the full column selection range at least not with the latex options. It does for the standard format. Likely they are working on the glitch already but will check p and make sure they are aware of it.

\[{\scriptsize\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline z&Scale (a)&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&D_{par}(Gly)&H(t)&Temp(K) \\ \hline 1.09e+3&9.17e-4&3.72e-4&6.27e-4&4.53e+1&4.16e-2&5.67e-2&8.52e-4&1.55e+6&2.97e+3\\ \hline 3.39e+2&2.94e-3&2.49e-3&3.95e-3&4.42e+1&1.30e-1&1.79e-1&6.11e-3&2.46e+5&9.27e+2\\ \hline 1.05e+2&9.44e-3&1.53e-2&2.34e-2&4.20e+1&3.97e-1&5.53e-1&4.01e-2&4.15e+4&2.89e+2\\ \hline 3.20e+1&3.03e-2&9.01e-2&1.36e-1&3.81e+1&1.15e+0&1.65e+0&2.48e-1&7.15e+3&9.00e+1\\ \hline 9.29e+0&9.71e-2&5.22e-1&7.84e-1&3.09e+1&3.00e+0&4.61e+0&1.49e+0&1.24e+3&2.81e+1\\ \hline 2.21e+0&3.12e-1&2.98e+0&4.37e+0&1.83e+1&5.69e+0&1.09e+1&8.73e+0&2.23e+2&8.74e+0\\ \hline 0.00e+0&1.00e+0&1.38e+1&1.44e+1&0.00e+0&0.00e+0&1.65e+1&4.63e+1&6.74e+1&2.73e+0\\ \hline -6.88e-1&3.21e+0&3.30e+1&1.73e+1&1.12e+1&3.58e+1&1.73e+1&1.84e+2&5.64e+1&8.49e-1\\ \hline -8.68e-1&7.58e+0&4.79e+1&1.74e+1&1.43e+1&1.08e+2&1.74e+1&4.59e+2&5.61e+1&3.59e-1\\ \hline -9.44e-1&1.79e+1&6.28e+1&1.74e+1&1.56e+1&2.79e+2&1.74e+1&1.11e+3&5.60e+1&1.52e-1\\ \hline -9.76e-1&4.23e+1&7.77e+1&1.74e+1&1.61e+1&6.84e+2&1.74e+1&2.64e+3&5.60e+1&6.44e-2\\ \hline -9.90e-1&1.00e+2&9.27e+1&1.74e+1&1.64e+1&1.64e+3&1.74e+1&6.27e+3&5.60e+1&2.73e-2\\ \hline \end{array}}\]

Anyways The above calculator which Myself, Jorrie, Cuthberd and Markus were involved in the development though in my case it was mainly error checking and writing up some of the guides to how to use it while Jorrie and Cuthberd handled the programming aspects. Markus mainly did his best on advertising and aiding others in using it as well as crosschecks. Unfortunately he passed away a few years back.

Its is a handy tool as one can apply any dataset to it and it greatly saves on calculations using the primary formulas of the FLRW metric.

The nucleosynthesis thread has the major formulas I will be employing along with the SM Langrange. I am currently working on the family generations aspects. Already have the required math just need to cross check a few details.

Needless to say I'm not developing a GUT I am applying SO(10) MSM, the FLRW metric, QFT and GR.

The calculator uses the methodology by Lineweaver and Davies in particular stretch, (inverse of scale factor, which coincidentally also gives temperature. Much of the methodology I will be using is covered in the following articles

http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf

in essence I am simply attempting more exacting solutions with more modern datasets and methodologies,

 

 

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Some of the aspects, I came across by doing the calculations and I will use Hydrogen thermal equilibrium dropout as an example. If one employs the Saha equations instead of relying on literature. One discovers that the hydrogen dropout value of 3000 kelvin only represents the value at the 75% mark. Hydrogen will begin drop out previous to that. At 6000 kelvin the % is 25%, at 4500 Kelvin the percentage is at 50%.

It is details such as this that become apparent when one looks beyond literature, performs his own calculations and doesn't rely on merely verbal descriptions. Another example is that by applying the Langrangian creation and annihilation operators one can get a more exacting value for number density (albiet its a probability density) that applying Maxwell Boltzmann. Which is the more common methodology. Both are equally valid, but each method has its pros and cons. Maxwell Boltzmann is a far easier method but is more an first order approximation comparatively. Where as the former method makes it far easier to cross check with collider datasets for key aspects and works well with Feymann integrals

 

Edited May 17, 2023 by Mordred