Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content count

    4850
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    31

Mordred last won the day on August 4

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

823 Glorious Leader

About Mordred

  • Rank
    Resident Expert

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://www.Cosmology101.wikidot.com

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • College Major/Degree
    University of the Caribou
  • Favorite Area of Science
    cosmology and particle physics

Recent Profile Visitors

20100 profile views
  1. The only viable method to address that question remaining to us is to solve how our universe began. The two major alternative methods we tried, (Universe curvature and signals in the CMB) have failed to provide conclusive data. It was once the belief in Cosmology that we could use curvature to determine if our universe is finite or infinite. However this turned out to be wrong. Lets play assume for a moment and assume expansion stopped. With our current ever so slight curvature , if we were to send a signal, that signal will theoretically take 880 billion years arrive back on Earth. ( as curvature affects light paths, this remains true in both the finite and infinite case).
  2. I wouldn't accept the bet, I recall one line by Migl that is appropriate. Our observable universe is finite, and we will never receive signals beyond the cosmic event horizon. So for all practical purposes it only matters what we can understand about our finite observable portion of the universe.
  3. lol This is under the assumption of an infinite universe, you are quite right that the universe may be finite. We simply don't know which is the case
  4. Good answer Itoero +1
  5. This will mess you up most likely but it is possible to divide an infinite quantity an infinite number of times and each portion will still be infinite. The theoretical multiverse could be the same, so could our own universe.
  6. Gravity waves arise from anistropies of spacetime. The BB from 10^-43 sec forward is considered homogeneous and isotropic so you wouldn't have GW production from the rapid expansion due to BB
  7. That last bit on the QM agreement/disagreement lies in the three views of QM. Is that Bell used objective local theory. However not all polarization angles agree with Bells. Rather support QM, this can be found by studying CHSH inequalities.
  8. lol ya don't need to understand it all, QM terminology arises from statistical calculus and so does much of its mathematical methodology. For example sections on Stochastic probability, Gaussian, correlation function, locality, probabilities probability density function etc. The rudiments of the math and arguments is in the last link
  9. This paper is an F(R) gravity treatment, https://arxiv.org/abs/1606.07000 that explains the concern I had with the [latex]g_{\mu\nu}[/latex] the first two pages of the above link explains the two treatments. In a nutshell the first paragraph "The questions about the concepts of dark matter and dark energy motivated the development of new gravity theories. Most of them are direct modifications of genneral relativity (GR), such as f(R) theories where, in conntrast to GR, the Einstein-Hilbert Lagrangian density is replaced by a nonlinear function f(R). The nonlinearities lead to different sets of field equations according to the different variational approaches for the action" under F(R) the methodology looks correct. though I'm very rusty on F(R) To understand the methodology a starting point is statistical calculus. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.columbia.edu/~mh2078/stochastic_calculus.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwi5l8Dzqs7VAhWN8oMKHceVCnUQFggiMAE&usg=AFQjCNEaY477wJHuzgVAfC6YtvhU8uH8sA Last link will also help in all quantum topics...and engineering etc etc
  10. Thanks for bringing the above to our attention. I know I will study the above lol as RL allows.
  11. As you have already mentioned the extreme difficulty measuring gravity at the quantum scale, about the best we can do is set the upper and lower constraints based upon numerous studies and methodologies based upon indirect and multi particle studies that we can measure. Much like what happened with the Higgs field. Prior to being discovered. The studies pointed to where to look by numerous constraints being gradually tightened. The data to set those bounds would comprise of years of research and various model comparisons to fine tune the bounds. One solid example of applicable datasets is the GW wave data being collected. You get a ton of details that are applicable to quantizing gravity. Amplitude, strength and spin statistics (quadupole data). A solid range of samples will provide incredibly useful data to tighten our constraints.
  12. will study this paper before I reply, but am reading them (the links above are identical). Edit: This is going to take me a bit, gonna have to study it in more details on their new polarization treatments. Mathematically its well detailed but I need to work through them. I don't see anything unsound about what they are doing but still studying it. In particular I am seriously questioning the modifications to the metric tensor. Regarding the time dependencies.
  13. For string theory itself I feel twistor theories has a strong potential. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://conservancy.umn.edu/bitstream/handle/11299/130081/spradlin.pdf%3Fsequence%3D1&ved=0ahUKEwji3Z7g8M3VAhUT24MKHSqDCSAQFggoMAI&usg=AFQjCNGgWPZJMvC0M8LxeTX2RTtu_bCesA Twistor theory link above. You can replicate spinfoam via twistor, just an fyi
  14. LQG is a good solid modelling system, Myself I prefer QFT under quantum geometrodynamics. Here is an intro from arxiv. https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/1108.3269&ved=0ahUKEwjdtJmq7s3VAhXl1IMKHQZUB20QFghBMAk&usg=AFQjCNG0UYMuDcmyD_f900Ksskv7b1ei8Q Either method String, QFT or LQG stand an equal chance in my opinion. They are all equally capable of describing any dynamic from the quantum scale to individual interactions to spacetime fields There are full treatments of SO(10) both MSM a(minimal standard model) and MSSM ( minimal supersymmetric model) in either methodology of the above. Under particle interactions or under field treatments.
  15. I hope the above helps better understand the above, it isn't a case of a mistake but rather which is the better suited treatment. Bell used frequentism which is primarily the Quassian wavefunction rather than Bayer learning etc. Another oft missed term is Stochastic. A good book on Stochastic probability theory is "An introduction to Schotastic modelling" by Howard M Taylor. However you require Calculus. Lol just a side note statistical mechanics is probably one of my weaker subjects so hopefully I didn't make any mistakes in the above lol I hated statistics for years till I finally realized I needed to understand it to properly understand QM/QFT. Little side note if you want to really want to understand terms such as determinslism, local, real and how they are defined study the two books I recommended. They have specific statistical definitions