Resident Experts
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Mordred

  1. Wave particle duality is highly tested. Your false assertions are not. Your also thinking of particles as little solid objects. They are not, QFT applies Relativity and uses spacetime it isn't seperate from it.
  2. a would be the differential between your H/H_0 recall that a as the scale factor is just a dimensionless ratio parameter. You set scale factor at cosmological time now at 1. a would be the differential between your H/H_0 recall that a as the scale factor is just a dimensionless ratio parameter. You set scale factor at cosmological time now at 1. Here this will help [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}\hline T_{Ho} (Gy) & T_{H\infty} (Gy) & S_{eq} & H_{0} & \Omega_\Lambda & \Omega_m\\ \hline 14.4&17.3&3400&67.9&0.693&0.307\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] [latex]{\small\begin{array}{|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|} \hline a=1/S&S&T (Gy)&R (Gly)&D_{now} (Gly)&D_{then}(Gly)&D_{hor}(Gly)&V_{gen}/c&H/Ho \\ \hline 0.001&1090.000&0.000373&0.000628&45.331596&0.041589&0.056714&21.023&22915.263\\ \hline 0.001&863.334&0.000551&0.000915&45.159913&0.052309&0.071406&18.232&15740.128\\ \hline 0.001&683.804&0.000810&0.001326&44.962398&0.065753&0.089864&15.881&10859.192\\ \hline 0.002&541.606&0.001183&0.001915&44.736079&0.082599&0.113040&13.885&7520.218\\ \hline 0.002&428.979&0.001722&0.002756&44.477683&0.103683&0.142116&12.180&5224.758\\ \hline 0.003&339.773&0.002496&0.003956&44.183524&0.130038&0.178562&10.712&3639.803\\ \hline 0.004&269.117&0.003606&0.005666&43.849475&0.162938&0.224202&9.443&2541.361\\ \hline 0.005&213.154&0.005194&0.008100&43.470902&0.203941&0.281289&8.340&1777.702\\ \hline 0.006&168.829&0.007463&0.011563&43.042568&0.254948&0.352603&7.377&1245.393\\ \hline 0.007&133.721&0.010698&0.016484&42.558633&0.318265&0.441559&6.533&873.554\\ \hline 0.009&105.913&0.015309&0.023478&42.012463&0.396668&0.552333&5.791&613.344\\ \hline 0.012&83.889&0.021873&0.033412&41.396601&0.493471&0.690005&5.138&430.988\\ \hline 0.015&66.444&0.031211&0.047518&40.702622&0.612585&0.860719&4.561&303.042\\ \hline 0.019&52.627&0.044487&0.067545&39.921133&0.758568&1.071848&4.051&213.190\\ \hline 0.024&41.683&0.063355&0.095974&39.041469&0.936624&1.332155&3.600&150.041\\ \hline 0.030&33.015&0.090158&0.136321&38.051665&1.152552&1.651928&3.200&105.633\\ \hline 0.038&26.150&0.128224&0.193578&36.938267&1.412573&2.043059&2.845&74.389\\ \hline 0.048&20.712&0.182274&0.274818&35.686105&1.722983&2.519001&2.530&52.398\\ \hline 0.061&16.405&0.258995&0.390062&34.278330&2.089532&3.094542&2.250&36.917\\ \hline 0.077&12.993&0.367873&0.553490&32.695921&2.516347&3.785220&2.002&26.017\\ \hline 0.097&10.291&0.522342&0.785104&30.917756&3.004225&4.606237&1.782&18.342\\ \hline 0.123&8.151&0.741396&1.112970&28.920472&3.547949&5.570564&1.587&12.938\\ \hline 0.155&6.456&1.051751&1.575989&26.679131&4.132295&6.685941&1.415&9.137\\ \hline 0.196&5.114&1.490772&2.226851&24.167785&4.726112&7.950210&1.265&6.467\\ \hline 0.247&4.050&2.109877&3.133394&21.362526&5.274330&9.344906&1.135&4.596\\ \hline 0.312&3.208&2.977691&4.373615&18.247534&5.688090&10.827382&1.026&3.292\\ \hline 0.394&2.541&4.180384&6.013592&14.827243&5.835394&12.323993&0.942&2.395\\ \hline 0.497&2.013&5.813076&8.053192&11.147771&5.539179&13.731340&0.888&1.788\\ \hline 0.627&1.594&7.955449&10.346218&7.320583&4.592515&14.935503&0.873&1.392\\ \hline 0.792&1.263&10.632280&12.576261&3.528946&2.795101&15.853609&0.907&1.145\\ \hline 1.000&1.000&13.787206&14.399932&0.000000&0.000000&16.472274&1.000&1.000\\ \hline 1.263&0.792&17.302122&15.660852&3.144839&3.970507&16.845080&1.161&0.919\\ \hline 1.571&0.637&20.811932&16.388509&5.639833&8.860361&17.041221&1.380&0.879\\ \hline 1.955&0.512&24.444731&16.808523&7.715938&15.083827&17.146441&1.675&0.857\\ \hline 2.433&0.411&28.147021&17.039505&9.416655&22.906412&17.198866&2.056&0.845\\ \hline 3.027&0.330&31.886775&17.163312&10.797410&32.682676&17.221760&2.540&0.839\\ \hline 3.766&0.265&35.646534&17.228668&11.913050&44.870264&17.228668&3.148&0.836\\ \hline 4.687&0.213&39.416981&17.262737&12.812202&60.047793&17.262737&3.910&0.834\\ \hline 5.832&0.171&43.192748&17.280614&13.535828&78.939747&17.280614&4.860&0.833\\ \hline 7.257&0.138&46.971377&17.289940&14.117812&102.450932&17.289940&6.044&0.833\\ \hline 9.030&0.111&50.751666&17.294639&14.585725&131.708610&17.294639&7.519&0.833\\ \hline 11.236&0.089&54.532554&17.297194&14.961819&168.115662&17.297194&9.354&0.833\\ \hline 13.982&0.072&58.313845&17.298546&15.264097&213.418728&17.298546&11.639&0.832\\ \hline 17.398&0.057&62.095516&17.299100&15.507045&269.791380&17.299100&14.482&0.832\\ \hline 21.649&0.046&65.877123&17.299503&15.702284&339.937814&17.299503&18.020&0.832\\ \hline 26.939&0.037&69.658785&17.299738&15.859189&427.223615&17.299738&22.423&0.832\\ \hline 33.521&0.030&73.440477&17.299885&15.985286&535.836513&17.299885&27.902&0.832\\ \hline 41.711&0.024&77.222357&17.299813&16.086628&670.987643&17.299813&34.719&0.832\\ \hline 51.902&0.019&81.004072&17.299891&16.168066&839.160848&17.299891&43.202&0.832\\ \hline 64.584&0.015&84.785791&17.299957&16.233514&1048.424819&17.299957&53.758&0.832\\ \hline 80.364&0.012&88.567685&17.299844&16.286113&1308.819673&17.299844&66.893&0.832\\ \hline 100.000&0.010&92.349407&17.299900&16.328381&1632.838131&17.299900&83.237&0.832\\ \hline \end{array}}[/latex] Row 1.00 is today after row 1.00 is future. Previous is past.
  3. Constructive interference if they have different phases destructive interference. I did post a link describing this. See the link on wave interference.
  4. unfortunately that doesn't work with the mass density. Nor does it work with the radiation density. As the universe expands these both decrease at the ratios I have provided above. Were not dealing with the total energy content of either they are assumed constant by the adiabatic expansion (adiabatic means no net inflow or outflow of energy) the particle density is typically set constant at roughly 10^(90) particles. unfortunately as the universe expands Lambda increases in total energy Here is something I want you to consider, when it comes to vacuum densities we have numerous overlapping densities. You have the zero point energy, the VeV of the Higgs field the cosmological constant etc. In a particle/antiparticle complex scalar field of creation and annihation of a complex scalar field the energy density can reach infinity. However consider this we cannot know the absolute energy of the vacuum, we can only measure its potential differences. Think of an electric wire you can only measure the voltage across some potential difference such as a resistor... this brings back to mind an article By Unruh on the cosmological problem in that he argues that the fine tuning problem can be resolved via parametric down conversion and an inhomogeneous vacuum. you may find this interesting. PS your one of the few posters who has a thread in Speculation forum that sticks to the proper methodology in modelling and following the Speculation forum guidelines in making testable predictions via mathematics so I gave you a +1 for that
  5. Ok lets do this I had to review a few things, particularly with the curvature constant. [math]\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=H^2=\frac{8\pi G}{3}\rho-\frac{kc^2}{R^2}\frac{1}{a^2}+\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}[/math] kc^2/R^2 is the curvature term in a Lambda free universe if a value of H^2 is given there is a link between the curvature term and [math]\rho[/math] and this leads to the critical density [math]\rho_c=\frac{3H^2}{8\pi G}[/math] if the universe is at critical density it is flat. [math]\Omega=\frac{\rho}{\rho_c}[/math] so we can rewrite the FL as [math]1-\Omega=\frac{-kc^2}{R^2a^2H^2}[/math] if [math]\rho=\rho_c[/math] we have flat if [math]\rho>\rho_c[/math] universe is closed if [math]\rho<\rho_c [/math] universe is open. now we have to incorporate the fluid equations for adiabatic expansion. from the first law of thermodynamics [math]DE+PdV=0[/math] [math]\dot{v}/V=3\dot{a}{a}[/math] and [math] DE/dt=\rho c^2dV/dt+c^2Vdp/dt[/math] this gives us [math]\dot{\rho}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho+P/c^2[/math] so [math]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G}{3}(\rho+3\frac{P}{c^2})+\frac{\Lambda C^2}{3}[/math] given [math] P=wc^2\rho[/math] combining this equation with the following [math]\dot{\rho}+3\frac{\dot{a}}{a}\rho+P/c^2[/math] gives us [math]\rho=\rho_0a^{-3(1+w)}[/math] from this we can determine the matter density [math]\rho_m=\rho_0a^{-3}[/math] and radiation [math]\rho_r=\rho_{r,0}a^{-4}[/math] so now you can compare densities to obtain [math]\Omega[/math] note that [math]\rho_\Lambda=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{8\pi G}[/math] giving [math]\Omega_\Lambda=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3H^2}[/math] taking the ratios of [math]\Omega[/math] gives us the energy density that dominates example radiation to matter is [math]\Omega_r/\Omega_m=\rho_r\rho_m\frac{1}{a}=\frac{1}{3600 }a[/math] if a_0=1 then there was a time the universe was radiation dominant. for a Lambda dominant [math]\dot{a}^2=\frac{\Lambda c^2}{3}a^2[/math] so for the evolution of the three components we get [math]\frac{H^2}{H^2_0}=\frac{\Omega_{r,0}}{a^4}+\frac{\Omega_{m,0}}{a^3}+\Omega_{\Lambda,0}+\frac{1-\Omega_0}{a^2}[/math] this is how its done to preserve the curvature terms and account for the radiation and matter dominant eras hence my hesitancy on your second equation
  6. Not necessarily. Did you click matter waves on that link the matter waves link details two experiments involving electrons wave nature in scattering experiments Here is one of them–Germer_experiment Some of the others are mentioned here
  7. Not as far as the universe today but I do question it's validity at other cosmological times. The problem being how the critical density evolves while Lambda doesn't.
  8. Letter me ask you a question that you can use to help you. What happens when two waves interact ? It doesn't have to be matter waves or force waves. Here
  9. That's correct but it has been conjectured in applications beyond blackhole entropy. Though it lost popularity to Shannon entropy. Anyways the question still stands how many bits would one need to simulate the observable universe and all the quantum information it would contain. If the OP wants to restrict this to observation then ask the question how many bits of information does a single human process in a second just in visual sight. There is theoretical limits to how much information that can be packed within a finite volume. I mentioned some of the involved theories. So the gist of the question is How much information would one need to simulate an entire universe and using these theoretical limits how much space would one need to store that information to run said simulation ? Those are the kind of questions the OP should be asking...
  10. Apply probability functions involving 26 electrons in a finite spacetime region. Then consider further the entropy association to the effective of freedom
  11. Consider how particles can decay into other particles when the original particle does not contain the other particles. Consider how two protons can form Higgs boson as one example. This is just one example where the field excitation formalism of QFT makes more sense than thinking of particles as little billiard balls.
  12. An older article on the Berenstain bound. Perhaps the OP should look into it as a starting point.
  13. All particles are field excitations which is a wavefunction. All fermionic particles count as matter this includes electrons.
  14. I've seen calculations that for a single atom of iron you would need 10^80 bits of information. So it is a relevent question.
  15. Let's ask a question here, how much raw data do you think it would require to simulate an entire universe with all the relevant probability functions and wave functions of every particle. This is something that has come up before in simulated universe theories and it does have relevance
  16. Supergravity theories vary depending on the model. Primarily the models are under MSSM supersymmetry. The radiation would still be sufficient to overcome the quark gluons plasma self gravity otherwise the universe would have simply collapsed prior to inflation. Supergravity still has gravity but it is in thermal equilibrium with the other three forces. In essence the four forces cannot be distinguished from one another.
  17. Mordred


    Thanks for the catch it was 5 am when I typed that and hadn't had my first coffee lol
  18. Mordred


    Acceleration is not the same as momentum. Why don't you study basic physics terminology
  19. Mordred


    Incorrect force is not momentum. You should really learn the definitions of each term. For example the unit of force is a Newton. Which is the amount of energy required to move a 1 kg mass one metre in one second. It should not take long to include your vector directions with your post. The SI unit for force is N for newton while the SI unit for momentum is kg*m/s. Momentum has dimensionality MLT^-1
  20. You need to be careful here. Consider two fundamental questions. The critical density itself changes over cosmological time however the cosmological constant stays constant... The critical density is calculated without lambda and without any curvature term. Our universe is close to flat however not precisely flat... Now apply that to your second equation that you derived in your last post. If [latex]\rho=\rho_{crit}[/latex] Then k=0. Our curvature term k isn't precisely 0 though close. Remember the critical density is a calculated density not the actual density. Consider this at z=1100 roughly CMB surface of last scattering H is roughly 22000 times the H_0 value today. Yet the cosmological constant is the same in both then and now...
  21. First equation shouldn't have the c^2 in the numerator equation two doesn't look correct either as the Lambda energy density is just a fraction of the critical density. value should be of the order [latex]7*10^{-30} g/m^3[/latex] edit:Doh wait you wanted the energy critical density which explains the C^2 as opposed to the mass critical density, you have it correct on both just forgot that conversion
  22. ! Moderator Note Well your correct this thread certainly doesn't belong in the Astronomy and Cosmology forum as it is more philosophical than hard physics. So I will move it to the Philosophy forum.
  23. No they don't not from what I recall from your posts on this site. Smolin has his own ideas on realism and the problems facing physics in terms of quantum gravity. One of those ideas involves cyclic universes and the usage of Chern-Simons time. Smolin looks for alternatives for GR as well.
  24. research google can be your friend there are plenty of reviews out there atm