Jump to content

Mordred

Resident Experts
  • Content Count

    7705
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

Mordred last won the day on March 5

Mordred had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

1315 Glorious Leader

5 Followers

About Mordred

  • Rank
    Resident Expert

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

28262 profile views
  1. Sounds like a word salad. Can you argue that the equality sign is a relation ? Not a dimension under mathematical definition ? Mathematics doesn't require words. The proof must be based upon the math
  2. How do you start with the math to reach calculus under differential geometry or calculus of variations. What is your current math level then I can better guide you. Incorrect under string theory gravity is the fundamental string via the graviton.
  3. That is a goal anyone interested in science aspires to. Unfortunately in order to accomplish that goal required considerable study and research. It also requires a good understanding of the math. The dynamics of a WH could never account for the behavior and distribution of DM. Many of the reasons are already provided above.
  4. You obviously do not know the first thing about QFT if you believe this statement. The very first chapters in any QFT textbook deals with how QFT applies the Klein Gordon equation to apply the four momentum etc for Lorentz invariance. It is a fully SR compatible theory. SR is not limited to just the EM field it affects all qauge groups. You have been told this numerous times now.
  5. Again it doesn't count as a dimension. It is a relation not a dimension.
  6. The equal sign itself has no value it is not an independent variable. A dimension is defined as an independent variable or other math object that can vary in value without affecting any other value.
  7. Correct a Majorana particle must be charge neutral. I can offhand think of one particular boson that is its own antiparticle that has a mass term. I will leave it at that to see if the OP can identify it. As he has excluded Majorana mass.
  8. Well the use of Majorana spinors etc isn't an issue. It can simplify modelling the charge neutral particles in so far as the effective degrees of freedom and creation and annihilation operators. The creation and annihilation operators for a Majorana particle is identical. Which means the two frequency modes are also identical. This property greatly simplifies numerous calculations as you can exclude antisymmetric relations. Now the only fermion that might qualify would be the neutrino, however this is still an open debate. Part of the problem is the missing right hand neutrinos.
  9. Sigh ok let's skip to some basic physics.You mentioned crossings and energy. This is incorrect. Energyis the ability to perform work. Nothing more nothing less. I am not going to look through five of your papers the first two was difficult enough to stomach in all the claims without mathematical backing. It is readily apparent you know numerous buzz words without understanding the meaning. No matter what methodology I suggest to conform to physics you make excuses to avoid any mathematics specific to your model. Do you even understand Majoronna mass ? Or Majoronna spinors ? What particles would qualify ? You have yet to describe a strand let one a crossing. Defining isn't a verbal descriptive. Defining requires math under any physics model. Quite frankly I have lost track of the number of claims without backing from you.
  10. I prefer this medium, the cosmology calculator link on my signature I only contributed in writing the user guide. I have been unable to contact the programmer. One of the contributors has already passed away (Marcus). The first step I see you need to properly define is the strand itself. Once you can do that then progress to the lie algebra. In particular note the Hamilton. You must incorporate how strands correlate to the energy momentum equation. Ideally under the Klein Gordon which is second order and has a confrontation to QM and the first order of the Schrodinger equation. (There is a fix for that ) in so far as the Operator assignment for the time operator. (Note I specified the steps from QM to QFT). Now do you understand what is meant by thermal equilibrium in regards to electroweak symmetry breaking? Secondly what is your familiarity to differential geometry and calculus of variations? On another note are you familiar with Bra ket notation ? I need a math basis compatible with your understanding. For example the Pauli exclusion principle. Why do bosons not qualify as matter particles while 1/2 integer spins do? This is another point your strand theory needs to incorporate. I have no qualms with Riedermaster moves in [math]\mathbb{R}^3 [/math] it is a valid methodology in graph applications. Wilson loops is a prime example in LQC applications. However this is a mathematical methodology not to be confused with physicality. A closed knot for example is an excellent means of dimension compaction. To form a closed group Here is something to consider. How does a particle physicist describe physicality? (PS highly applicable to QFT)
  11. I have read your papers already. I found them lacking in critical details. This is something one must be prepared for when defending a model. Lets put it this way I have a Masters degree in Cosmology which my focus of big bang nucleosynthesis required me to also pick up a degree in particle physics. Now I do not state the above to boast, this site does have a few PH. D physicists. Now here is the interesting part, I do not care if your model is right or wrong provided there is viability So the question I put forward to you is do you wish to advance your conjecture in the proper physics methodology which requires the relevant mathematics? Or do you feel your random assertions are sufficient? You will note I have already provided examples where your strands can be modeled via the link I provided. The question I have is are you prepared to do the necessary steps ? PS I may sound angry but personally I do not care what you believe. I simply wish to know if I am wasting my time in providing guidance to help you develop a strong robust model. Now on a more personal note I don't visit forums to advertise or seek answers. I visit forums to help teach. I never teach personal views or thoughts. Everything I state I am prepared to defend via textbook answers or peer reviewed material. I do have a further advantage in that I have been doing physics for 35 years or so. Lol my own dissertation was long ago proven wrong. Though back then I only had COBE data to work from. WMAP and Planck data wasn't available. Life goes on.
  12. Once again verbal claims where is your evidence ? Where is your proof. You have zero zip mathematics of your own model. You cannot even mathematically describe a strand so where is your proof it does as you claim. Have you not figured it out yet I do not accept claims without proof.... Show some flipping proof to your claims. You have been unable to substantiate s single claim you have made the entire thread. All you have provided is what you believe Show me how you can explain black holes or neutrino mass sequence etc etc beyond claiming you can. prove me wrong give me the temperature neutrinos drop out of thermal equilibrium and calculate the mean average density of the neutrino family at that blackbody temperature. Your the expert provide the answer. provide me the equation to calculate the range of the weak force.
  13. We have a different definition of proof most likely due to my being a physicist. According to your own replies a strand isn't made of any particles or energy. It isn't made of anything according to you. Yet you have a tube of Planck radius. How and why ? Can you measure a strand = no Can you provide experimental evidence of a strand = no Can we describe the SM model without strands=yes. So where is your proof other than your say so ? Go ahead provide experimental evidence for a strand yes that's a challenge to you. You cannot even provide a mathematical proof The burden of proof is in your court it's also a requirement on this forum. How can it not ? You have zero equations of your own. The equations used in QFT etc are not evidence that strands are needed. Quite the opposite they work without strands. They can also explain family generations. Which you asserted they don't
  14. So convince me otherwise verbal assertions isn't proof. I could as readily assert the universe is made of fairy dust.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.