Mordred

I find it remarkable that not once has the speed limit of information exchange hasn't once been included in regards to causality. why ? Perhaps you should include relativity as its obviously not being applied correctly if at all. You should also learn what is meant by invariant vs variant quantities. As others have already noted. Further more there is causality between an event and a non inertial frame of reference. So stating that causality only occurs with inertial reference frames is false. Take for example all Observers regardless of being inertial or non inertial will record the same velocity for massless particles that being c. How does that work under your hypothesis ? there is obvious causation when you take a measurement. Information exchange counts Nor does causation even require observers. Causation simply requires sufficient time for exchange between two events. This can occur even without any observers. Primary example the BB and all processes prior to any lifeforms that could observe or make measurements. So how are you defining an observer ? Under QM its the act of measurement which includes interference obvious causation in that regard. Or perhaps your only discussing local causality defined by c to an observer in regards to the Observers past, present and future light-cones. None of which has been mentioned yet. One could readily argue that everything in our Observable universe has a past causal connection. That is what defines our Observable universe to begin with. However I assume you wish to keep this under SR in which case all time-like separated events are in causal connection while space-like separated events are not. All Observers will agree on the ordering of events to all time-like separated Observers. For observers that are accelerating one can preserve time-like separation via the relevant proper time transformations. a simple treatment using instantaneous velocities in time ordering \[\tau=\int_{t1}^{t2}\frac{dt}{\gamma(t)}\] for varying \(\gamma\). Now without downloading your paper I bet dollars to donuts you don't have any spacetime treatment and is strictly looking at Euclidean Geometry instead of Minkowskii ? Ie your not applying the Lorentz transforms \[\acute{(ct)}=\gamma(ct)-\beta x\] \[\acute{(x)}=\gamma(x-\beta (ct))\] am I correct in that ?

Good question lets try a very simplistic example. take a lake and the air above it. The boundary is the surface of the lake. So in this instance the EM field is what holds atoms together to make up solids, liquids and gases. So what makes up the boundary condition is the water molecules and the air molecules at the point of intersection between the two. In this case what holds the boundary condition is the EM field. that last example should answer that question and no the Higgs field only gives mass to certain particles. W,Z boson, leptons and quarks it only accounts for 1 % the mass of protons and neutrons. The remainder of the mass is the strong force and EM force. These are handled via the Dirac, Yukawa and Higgs couplings. the quarks that make up the protons and neutrons are mediated by quarks. To bind neutrons to protons for the atom requires the photon for the EM mediator. part of the mass term for quarks being the Higgs field the Higgs boson is the mediator. So yes you can have several mediator particles involved with particles that interact with multiple fields. Don't treat time as anything other than the property describing rate of change or duration. Too often ppl want to make time into some substance or allow it to exist on its own. It doesn't its a property of systems, states, objects etc. Much like color doesn't exist on its own. It too is a property. Other physical properties include mass and energy. They too do not exist on their own but are properties. here is a short list of physical properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property as noted in that link a physical property must be measurable.

Lol 😆 yes dealing with the mathematics of quantum fields is evil 😈. I also noted you found where I got my callsign image from lol. Time is best understood as the property describing rate of change not a self existing entity. Ok if you want a force between a table and paper or chair you couldn't use the strong force. That force is within protons and neutrons etc. For everyday objects they are held together by the EM force. So make two systems or states. State A is the table State B is the paper Each State is describable by a field ( condensed matter lattice network for an official treatment) however let's keep it simple an EM field for each. Each State has a boundary condition (edges) Now there is interactions between State Table and state paper ( two EM fields interacting.) These interactions are mediated by the EM mediator the photon. Example the force between chair and paper where applicable (repulsion/attraction). It is much the same with quantum states or quantum particle states. Each particle is described as a state via wavefunctions. Those states also have boundary conditions determined by their interaction cross sections. (Your not ready for bare mass vs mass due to field couplings just yet.) The states interact with one another via mediator bosons such as the photon for the EM field, gluons for the strong force, W and Z bosons for the weak force. For gravity it's possibly the graviton we haven't detected any yet to confirm. So I recommend you switch your terminology to states with the edges being the boundary conditions. Hint when answering one of Studiots questions involving least energy. Apply that to each State. Studiot has been stepping you into a very specific interaction between two states (with two different energy potentials).

More an indication that we do not have a means to test for a limit for gravity aka curvature.

A field is renormalized when you have eliminated all infinities. For gravity we have not found an effective cutoff for the high energy end (UV cutoff) IR cutoff is the low energy end. Example g=0 is an effective IR cutoff.

No it doesn't quarks make up all hadrons which includes mesons, tetraquarks, protons and neutrons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron

Mu Must be distracted at work lmao. Those diodes have been around over 15 years when I first heard about them. If memory serves correct. Given the silly mistakes above lmao I wouldn't put too much faith in that timeline.

Particle entanglement is a whole different ball of wax. The easiest way to understand it is to recognize that entanglement uses probability functions (specifically a correlation function.) They also involve the conservation laws above. So for example entanglement diode generates two electrons due to conversation of charge one must be spin up the other spin down. However you do not know which is which until you measure (observe) it. So the state is a superposition state with a probability function in this example 50/50 chance the particle being measured is spin up or spin down. Once you measure one of the particles you automatically know what the other particle is due to the conservation law I mentioned. There is no causation or communication needed. Good point thanks for that catch

Quarks are elementary particles that make up protons and neutrons. Though they also make up mesons and tetraquarks (a meson and tetraquark are simply put a particular combination of quarks. You are correct quarks only exist in pairs they are different in that the strong force between them increases as the distance increases. This is called assymptotic freedom. What quark configurations are allowed involve numerous conservation laws particular to particle physics. Conservation of color, charge isospin,flavor , energy momentum, angular momentum, spin and parity. It will take a bit to learn these but for now just recognize all particle interactions follow these laws. An exotic particle is one that existed in the early universe but no longer exists today as the temperature is too low.

Unfortunately that wiki link doesn't help unless you study the article they got that descriptive from. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0506330 See the portion near the beginning where the author describes "roughness" ie uncertainties, noise etc when it comes to the wavefunctions defined by the relevant Langrangian. The problem is that the article and the wiki link are not being clear on the section pertaining to course graining and partition functions. Here is a relevant paper involving course graining using Wilsonian renormalization. https://arxiv.org/abs/1412.3148 This is the mathematics pertaining to short range and long range. Specifically pertaining to the following \[H=H_{IR}\otimes H_{UV}\] For the partitioning of the effective degrees of freedom for the short range IR as opposed to the Long range UV effective degrees of freedom with Hilbert action. PS do not confuse the graphs with physical distances were dealing with Hilbert space which is a type of function space in the same manner as phase or momentum space. These are mathematical spaces pertaining to graphs and not physical spaces.

As to your first set of questions. Galaxies by themselves are not expanding. That will get covered in the other link " In an expanding Universe what doesn't expand" Don't worry it's understandable you haven't got to that article yet. Lol as Studiot politely mentioned I threw a lot of info your way to process. Expansion occurs in the regions that are not gravitationally bound. Recessive velocity is based on the equation from Hubbles law. The greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity. \[v_{recessive}=H_0D \] Where the \(H_0\) is the Hubble value today. The Balloon analogy mentioned that our universe is not expanding into anything. The easiest way to think of expansion is a decrease in energy/mass density. Where the decrease has no inherent direction. Homogeneous and isotropic meaning no preferred location or direction. Inflation itself is well essentially identical to expansion in so far as having identical causation. The equations of state cosmology. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Simple to understand the equations of state is that matter, radiation both have momentum terms that equate to pressure which allows application of the ideal gas laws. So in essence what drives expansion is thermodynamics. Little aid on this the calculator in my signature can perform the more common calculations with regards to expansion and cosmological redshift. (Uses the same formulas as the Lineweaver and Davies article )

Ok we really need to work on terminology for example the term flux. This term can have numerous Meanings. Electric flux Magnetic flux Probability flux (yes this applies under QM). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/E lectric_flux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_flux https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_current Note probability current is also oft named probability flux. The reason why is apparent here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flux Flux also applies to the stress energy momentum tensor of GR. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress–energy_tensor So looking over these examples how does SQEP generate flux. What vectors are being applied ? Lol of course @studiotmay also mention flux with regards to engineering applications such as fluid hydrodynamics or gas flows.

That's the goal lol

Nah last 4 articles above the SR essentially all have the same equations and layout just done by different authors lol. The ones above training are all written with a novice audience in mind so has very little in the way of math. Lmao though this is coming from someone who will study 2000 plus page dissertations and proof read them in a matter of a couple of days.

We have a lot of members that do not have strong math skills and they were able to learn the basics. Obviously there is no practical way to teach enough on a forum to make you a physicist. Essentially I will provide recommended links and mention recommended textbooks to get you started. Start here there is a couple of lecture notes. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/inflationary-misconceptions-basics-cosmological-horizons/:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.4446 :"What we have leaned from Observational Cosmology." -A handy write up on observational cosmology in accordance with the LambdaCDM model. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808 :"Expanding Confusion: common misconceptions of cosmological horizons and the superluminal expansion of the Universe" Lineweaver and Davies http://www.mso.anu.edu.au/~charley/papers/LineweaverDavisSciAm.pdf: "Misconceptions about the Big bang" also Lineweaver and Davies http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.3966 "why the prejudice against a constant" http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0508052 "In an expanding universe, what doesn't expand? Richard H. Price, Joseph D. Romano http://arxiv.org/abs/1301.0219 What's in a Name: History and Meanings of the Term "Big Bang" Helge Kragh http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1442v1.pdf Is it possible to see the infinite future of the Universe when falling into a black hole? Training (textbook Style Articles) http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0004188v1.pdf :"ASTROPHYSICS AND COSMOLOGY"- A compilation of cosmology by Juan Garcıa-Bellido http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0409426 An overview of Cosmology Julien Lesgourgues http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0503203.pdf "Particle Physics and Inflationary Cosmology" by Andrei Linde http://www.wiese.itp.unibe.ch/lectures/universe.pdf:" Particle Physics of the Early universe" by Uwe-Jens Wiese Thermodynamics, Big bang Nucleosynthesis http://www.gutenberg.org/files/30155/30155-pdf.pdf: "Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein The first section are low level math but at this time don't worry about understanding the math itself they are well explained verbally. If you can get through those articles you will understand Cosmology far better than the average person. Not an expert but far more well informed. I will start with Cosmology prior to GR and QM/QFT as most of the formulas are Newtonian approximations. Any questions on the above can be posted in any relevant main stream forum. Except for the last article on SR the rest can be answered in the Astronomy/Cosmology forum Last one under Relativity as its basic SR.

Let's stick to the physics of our Observable universe before worrying about other possible universes. This evening I will run through the basics behind the LCDM model

So I have to ask are you willing to learn if we provide guidance and material to study to try and develop your ideas in a more formal manner ? If so we can certainly provide direction but the onus of doing the work is up to you. I also don't want to waste time if your not willing to learn. Yes I know we're talking a considerable amount of time to get up to speed with the basics of physics.

Unfortunately the role of a physics model is to calculate testable predictions which requires formulas. The truth of the matter is it doesn't matter how accurate a verbal description or picture etc is. If there is no way to calculate cause and effect then there isn't any usefulness. That's simply the reality.

Little suggestion you can also do away with the SQEPKR etc. Apply the energy momentum relation and apply either Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations or alternately the Dirac equations. There exists a category of particles called resonant particles. To understand what determines resonant particles one can study the Breit Wigner distributions which already factor in chirality/helicity and other quantum particle properties in the cross sections.

Truthfully I'm still waiting on any physics relevance. Much like Studiot I'm not interested in code. As mentioned physics applies logic whenever applicable.

Lol guess I'm too used to the math side lmao Yes but keep in mind this detection method isn't necessarily the only option. Although all methods will invariably be incredibly challenging including via particle accelerators in regards to quantum noise and required energy levels.

Tell you what it's far easier to literally drop the word gravity. It isn't a case of gravity gravitating whatever that means. What is perceived as gravity under GR is simply Tidal force due to curvature.

Let's put it this way we currently have no means to directly detect gravitons due to its extremely low theoretical cross section and extremely large Compton wavelength. This paper better describes the challenges https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0601043

There were alternate proposals with both possibilities I recall studying a few years back when I was studying the graviton research. Often they involved alternative gravity theories as well for example Stability of spin-0 graviton and strong coupling in Horava-Lifshitz theory of gravity https://arxiv.org/abs/1009.0268 Spin 1 I've seen for some supersymmetry based theories. Though haven't read any for spin 1 in several years. I agree with you on the unlikelyhood of any spin other than spin 2 but other alternatives are around lol.

No the cause is the other fields acting upon spacetime via their coupling (mass terms) the distinction is if gravity is a force the mediator is the graviton. If it's an effect then there is no mediator and it's strictly the curvature terms arising from the SM particle mass distributions. The question becomes is gravity strictly the tidal force (pseudoforce) due to curvature. If it's a force field then under QFT would have a mediator. Mathematically in both cases it's the acceleration terms in the effect case spacetime curvature itself applies the pseudo force in the graviton case it would mediate the force vectors. In either case you will get the same results as it's been shown gravitons are not needed to explain the effects if spacetime curvature. Consequently they are not needful for a ToE. Nor are gravitons needful to understand gravity.