Mordred

Your better off applying the energy momentum relation \[E^2=(pc)^2+(m_oc^2)^2\] This gives a better understanding of how massless particles are also involved (first term RHS) and massive particles (invariant mass second term RHS) are involved as energy being a property doesn't exist on its own. It is this equation that the Einstein field equations apply as well as the equation that gets integrated into the Klein-Gordon equation of QFT. While the BB model does not describe how the universe began all equations related to GUT break down at the singularity condition at \(10^{-43}\) seconds after BB. This includes those of GR, the standard model , QFT and the FLRW metric.

lets put it this way from what I read via the Research-gate copy as I don't care to join Inspire are far too few to really describe the theory in the article nor many of its claims. I didn't see any copy that I could confirm is peer reviewed. The copy I read is a preprint. The math inclusive in the article is a more common treatment of the cosmological problem and brief descriptive's of other commonly know equations including its mentions of Snyder's Algebra I honestly don't see any equations specific to the papers theory. ! Moderator Note The article itself has far too many claims not supported within the article in terms of any calculations specific to its claims to be considered an article within the rules required for mainstream Physics . Please review the requirements and rules for the speculation forum given in the pinned threads above.

lets detail the cosmological constant problem then you can show me how your paper solves this problem I will keep it simple for other readers by not using the Langrene for the time being and simply give a more algebraic treatment. ( mainly to help our other members). To start under QFT the normal modes of a field is a set of harmonic oscillators I will simply apply this as a bosons for simple representation as energy never exists on its own \[E_b=\sum_i(\frac{1}{2}+n_i)\hbar\omega_i\] where n_i is the individual modes n_i=(1,2,3,4.......) we can identify this with vacuum energy as \[E_\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_i\] the energy of a particle k with momentum is \[k=\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4}\] from this we can calculate the sum by integrating over the momentum states to obtain the vacuum energy density. \[\rho_\Lambda c^2=\int^\infty_0=\frac{4\pi k^2 dk}{(3\pi\hbar)^3}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4})\] where \(4\pi k^2 dk\) is the momentum phase space volume factor. the effective cutoff can be given at the Planck momentum \[k_{PL}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^3}{G_N}}\simeq 10^{19}GeV/c\] gives \[\rho \simeq \frac{K_{PL}}{16 \pi^2\hbar^3 c}\simeq\frac{10^74 Gev^4}{c^2(\hbar c)^3} \simeq 2*10^{91} g/cm^3\] compared to the measured Lambda term via the critical density formula \[2+10^{-29} g/cm^3\] method above given under Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology by Ta-Pei Cheng page 281 appendix A.14 (Oxford Master series in Particle physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology) So can you show how your paper addresses this in more detail. As your not familiar with this forums latex structure use \[latex\*] for new line \(latex\*) for inline I included the * simply to prevent activation. that way you can post your equations from the article here where needed as well as answer any other questions where the math is needed

Interesting conjecture the paper itself seems to be rather lacking in certain details. For example I couldn't see anything I could use to determine an effective equation of state for the cosmological term itself for any means of testability using observation. If I'm missing that could you provide how an effective of state would be derived from the article. I also didn't see how one applies thermodynamic relations such as any pertinent temperature contribution via the Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac statistics so I can only assume what you refer to as an SU(3) atom is and of itself not a particle contribution. It also surprises me you didn't include the relevant equations to the quantum harmonic oscillator in momentum space which led to the vacuum catastrophe. That detail is described under the minimally coupled scalar field langrene.

Your welcome if your familiar with latex and using latex for your math expressions use \[ latex\*] for seperate line and \(latex\*) for inline just remove the * from the last bracket as I put them there to prevent activation. I figured you might like the paper as your example has excellent similarity to the example within the paper.

Why do I get the feeling this is more an attempt to bash others rather than discuss which is a preferable application ? The choice of which to apply depends on which observer so what is the issue here ?

The only information one can gain from measuring GW waves is the mass of the source, the direction and momentum. For composition one would invariably need to use the EM field via spectography. Measuring direction is actually interesting as one can use the +× polarizations and the angles recieved of those polarizations. The other two polarizations are traceless. The transverse gauge is the changes in length while the traceless gauge is the strain components. Given via the perturbation matrix on a Minkoskii background due to its extreme weak influence. \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] Which is also used for the weak field limit. The perturbation tensor being after the plus sign. It's common to seperste any field into other fields in the above case the local metric to the wave being the Minkowskii tensor the global is the LHS of the equal sign. So in the above case we have three fields global, local and perturbation each field above being a tensor field which is a combination of scalar, vector and spinor relations. Renormalizing gravity also employs the same separation of spacetime into seperate fields as described above. Hence you will find the above equation in articles on renormalization. This is just an FYI the Minkowskii metric or spacetime is one of three Maximally symmetric spacetimes the other two being De-Sitter and anti-Desitter. How a Maximally spacetime is determined is via killing vectors to determine the non vanishing and vanishing terms of a metric. The easiest to calculate has the least non vanishing terms. Ie Maximally symmetric. We renormalize gravity in a Maximally symmetric spacetime we can't when it's not. To put it simply. Markus would also likely point out the Ricci curvature of a Maximally symmetric spacetime is zero. Those same preliminaries involving parallel transport are also involved in the killing vectors.

You really seem to have a reading comprehension problem or you like to imply what isn't intended. The lounge is not a place to discuss a physics topic I described the distinction of what belongs in mainstream physics as opposed to Speculation. I did not imply your thread automatically belonged in Soeculation hence why I let one of the full mods make that determination. Had I felt it belonged in Speculation I could have moved it there myself as Resident experts do in fact have that ability. ! Moderator Note This is just to demonstrate Resident experts do have some moderation abilities. Just so we're 100 percent clear on that The point being Resident experts are members of the moderation team. Pointing out more appropriate forums is part of my duties. When it comes to that it is a Resident experts primary duty.

@HopDavid would you like you the full system set of equations for the above. https://jfuchs.hotell.kau.se/kurs/amek/prst/15_lapo.pdf Your system albeit without names is directly applied in that article.

The centripetal force will point towards the barycenter. Which is the effective center of mass. Both Pluto and Charon will orbit the Barycenter. However you have no mass term for Voldemort so I assume the mass tetm at Valdemorts location is insignificant. The outward force (fictitious force felt by Valdemort ) in his non inertial frame is the Centrrifugal force.

Have you applied vectors to \[f=\frac{mv^2}{r}\] Yet in terms of my last post ? Or are you still looking into the distinctions of why that equation does not describe a fictitious force as opposed to \[f=m\omega^2 r\] If it helps use the 1/r^2 relation to gravity. Via \[f=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}\] Then look at your Langrene example above If your claiming mainstream physics is wrong then it does belong in Speculation. If it's simply not understanding the distinction then it belongs in mainstream.

Ok believe what you like. Doesn't change my reply if your going to lecture others you might want to use correct terminology. Particularly when it comes to properly understanding the difference between inertia and acceleration. It is after all clearly defined in any classical textbook. For that matter most classical textbooks don't bother explaining centrifugal force for the reasons Swansont mentioned above. Let's start with the statement Valdemort is centrifugal force. Now ask yourself under Newtons laws of inertia which direction is a force applied to cause an acceleration let's start there. PS you might also take last question and ask does that describe a fictitious force ? Might help you make the connection between inertial vs non inertial observers doing the measurement.

That is a key distinction between centripetal and centrifugal force. I was about to mention that but you beat me to it.

Now there's a theorem I haven't heard mentioned in ages lol. I almost completely forgot about that theorem.

First off inertia is constant velocity which is a vector (magnitude and direction) when you change directions it is acceleration not pseudo inertia. You need to include all three laws of inertia when defining inertia it's not just the tendency to travel in straight lines it also includes the constancy of speed as well as direction. Acceleration involves both change in velocity and change in direction. Secondly from what I read above this seems to belong under our Speculation forum and not the lounge. I will let one of the mods determine if it meets the requirements under one of the mainstream physics forums.

Really not sure what you mean by that gravity under GR is described as a tidal force due to curvature in essence the acceleration term. This is identical for the latter part under Newton gravity being an acceleration. In both cases Newtons Shell theorem applies. The gradient under Newtons is essentially replaced by curvature. So could you supply more detail on the last statement ?

As far as gravity waves you require some anistrophy such as a non uniform spinning object or a merger event such as BH mergers. The BB itself is also considered to generate GW waves but a uniform mass distribution doesn't generate either gravity or gravity waves. Gravity requires a curvature term and that obviously involves the stress energy momentum tensor For example the Earth with its mountains would generate GW waves but those waves would be far too miniscule for any reasonable means of detection. Marcus and Genady answer is both correct on the non linearity aspects.

One of the difficulties of understanding geodesics of GR is the parallel transport aspects with the affine connection. Which is rather essential to understanding GR. Where the Raychaudhuri tends to give that eureka moment is that it takes parallel transport and applies even more vectors which allows us to apply geodesic congruence. Where this comes in particular use by examining the area between these vectors field lines is it gives a better understanding of the stress, vorticy and shear terms. How this is of particular use with the Einstein field equations is how the stress, vorticity and shear affect the stress energy momentum tensor. I have been considering writing up something with regards the Raychaudhuri equations showing the above but it will take time to formulate and do properly. First one would need to explain geodesic motion under parallel transport. Show the affine connection, explain it's relation to the Rayleigh metric and include the Christoffels. That's the preliminary details but those preliminaries don't describe bulk flow. That's where Raychaudhuri becomes useful in connecting the stress energy tensor to those preliminaries. Raychaudhuri also gives a better understanding of the FLRW metric as well as event horizons including cosmological. There is even a usage and application to Hawking radiation. However as mentioned it does require a preliminary understanding of geodesic motion and how parallel transport works with it. That's where diagrams of course would be particularly useful.

Considering I define evil as desiring something to the point of not caring how one obtains their desire regardless of how it harms others. I simply deal with that by avoiding that behavior and showing respect for others. If I cannot obtain what I desire without harming others I simply deal without. However I don't follow religion I find many of the acts conducted in the name of religion evil by the above definition. However I have nothing against religion it's simply the acts conducted that I have issue with.

It's an interesting thought experiment and I for one thank @Linkey for bringing it up as it's the first time I have heard of this. My take on the paper is that the author is rather clear that no causation is involved nor does it allow any FTL communication. What the author refers to as psuedo-telepathy I took to be a descriptive of as "seeming to involve communication".

Well if you can't take formal training your next best option is the textbooks. Trying to learn any physics topics through searching the internet will lead you down too many garden paths. Feel free to ask any questions on the articles above and I and others will be happy to help you understand it.

I never bother using ChatGpt I tried it when it first came out and found it rather lacking in accuracy on more complex physics problems that require more than being a search engine.

It's likely alright the read/ write heads have some protection to prevent the heads from damaging the disks

Well I was thinking this would belong more in Speculation however there is actual research papers on the topic. Wiki does a very poor job explaining it by the way. "Quantum Pseudo-Telepathy" https://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0407221 Haven't studied it yet but figured the article would prove useful

Here is a couple of low level math overview of CPT. It's in essence a quick descriptive of each https://ps.uci.edu/~cyu/p224/LectureNotes/lecture13/lecture13.pdf https://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/ho/SM.pdf