Mordred

Not bad I wouldnt personally think of a field as a medium. However thats more a semantic reasoning. The field itself is more a topography map if you will. For example if the field has zero energy the field is still there but you will have no medium influence. One of the difficulties many people have is the tendency to think in terms of matter and solids. In actuality what constitutes matter is only fermionic particles. Yet these particles are essentially excitations. When you get down to it a particles wavefunction is far more an accurate descriptive. For example the term mass gives many people a great deal of grief. So lets look at it. We all know the equation f=ma. However most fail to recognize the meaning and definition of mass. "Which is resistance to inertia change." So what does this have to do with fields? Lets take an arbitrary particle. Lets first assume that particle has no rest mass. (Invariant mass). Example being the photon. Although the photon mediates the electromagnetic force. It doesnt directly interact with the electromagnetic field in terms of binding energy. A binding energy would create resistance. However the photon does interact with the electromagnetic force. Now lets look at a massive particle. For simplicity this particle only binds to one field. This binding causes a resistance to inertia change. Some particles interact with several fields and gain invariant mass from each field interaction. So in the above thinking a field can have medium like characteristics. However as energy is a property and doesnt exist on its own its more accurate to state that the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium. Ps I will give +1 lol

Thats a possibility. Well done in noting that by the way +1

Not quite true, there is some conjecture we are still in a lower false vacuum state. In particular in regards to the non zero vacuum component of the Higgs field. As far as modelling the cosmological constant or Higgs field another method is the scalar equations of state.

This forum welcomes new ideas but under some form of rigor and control. New ideas are great and wonderful. However those ideas need to have done scientific rigor to them. Otherwise its meaningless and pointless. Most of the members on any forum has often had there own ideas on how something works etc. However when they work out the math or study the related science in proper detail more often than not they discover there ideas are wrong or poorly thought out. Any model proposal undergoes rigourous examination and one of the steps to strengthen a model or idea is to find a rigourous way to explain the counter arguments to that model or idea. In some sense posters countering your idea or model is doing you a favor. They are supplying counter arguments so that you can cover those gaps. Without this aid any model would quickly be shown wrong. If you want an example read any good arxiv paper that proposes a new way of looking at something. Note that these professional papers always include a comparison to other older ways of thinking or models and compares the advantages the new model offers over the old. Too often we get posters who feel they have some new brilliant idea that only they understand. Yet when questioned we find they dont even have a basic understanding of the field they are discussing. There typical response is much like Ive seen thus far this thread ! Moderator Note besides which this forum even though it is a Speculations forum has rules to adhere to. You can review these rules here http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/86720-guidelines-for-participating-in-speculations-discussions/#entry839842 Think of it this way. If a mere forum membership can poke holes into your idea or model that you cannot address. How do you expect your model or idea to survive criticism by the professional scientific community?

I'm not sure how we got on the topic of electroweak symmetry breaking. However lets fill in some gaps. First off each field of the 4 forces has a coupling constant. This essentially relates the strength of how particle couples to a field or other particle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant The link details the variations I could post how each coupling constant is calculated however those details are in the first basic particle physics link I provided in my earlier post. Now lets run backward in time. Today we acknowledge the four forces with the Higgs field. Each field has unique properties and interactions. They are distinct from one another. Now running backward in time we start compressing our universe into a smaller volume. The consequence is the temperature increases. Every particle gains kinetic energy from this temperature. At certain temperatures the individual fields become indistinguishable from another field. The coupling constants of each field has the precise same value. You can no longer distinquish the electromagnetic field from the weak field. So for intensive purposes the two fields act as a single unified field. Raise the temperature even higher the strong force also joins this unified field. The Higgs follows the same. Theoretically at some point gravity will also unify. The fully unified field was at one time referred to as super gravity field. However I havent seen that term used in a while. Now what about the particles? Well they also start to reach a state called thermal equilibrium. This is a point where individual particles become indistinct from one another. As Migl pointed out though there is variations in Gut theories so when each event occurs and at what temperature will vary depending on which model your using. Supersymmetry for example has a greater number of decoupling than strictly the standard model. For the Higgs sector the variations are in the different seesaw mechanisms in each model.

No radiation sticks around but as the universe expands its influence decreases. Due to lower average density. In the very far future radiation will have negligant influence. Same with matter

That would just confuse you more Mike. I would focus on the electromagnetic force first. Study Maxwells equations and pick up a couple good articles on QED. This may or may not help http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 A Simple Introduction to Particle Physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 part 2 Personally I think the Feyman lectures may be of better use. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/ In particular volume 2

Mike your still missing several key aspects. First off you need to understand what is meant by a field. In essence a field assigns a physical value to every point in space. This value can be scalar, vector, a coordinate, an action or event, spinors etc. Now lets take a huge volume and add two charged particles. Keep in mind the following a particle makes a field, and a field acts on another particle. Now we know from the coupling constant for electromagnetism that the electromagnetic force is unlimitted in distance. However the strength of the field will fall off at 1/r^2. So even though the field is present its influence becomes negligant at a certain distance. Although it would be more accurate to consider the electromagnetic potential rather than the field strength. Google Aharonov Bohm effect for the reasons why. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aharonov%E2%80%93Bohm_effect Obviously an electron or body of electrons on the other side of the universe iosnt going to have any measurable effect on the magnet in your house. However the range of the electromagnetic field is unlimitted. However the other detail missing is how is the exchange force from electron a transmitted to electron b. This exchange is done via virtual photons which only exist long enough to convey the exchange. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/forces/exchg.html#c1 Photons is a stable particle however virtual photons are limitted by the uncertainty principle in its mean lifetime. Even though the photon has no charge it still mediates the charge between two electrons. The strong force has slightly different rules. For example as you pull a quark further away from another quark the field strength of the strong force increases rather than decrease. (Asymptotic freedom). It might help to also realize that particles pop in and out of existance all the time. This includes standard model particles. A photon does not require a medium to travel through. The average energy density of the universe equates to roughly 5 protons per cubic metre. Thats a vast amount of empty space. ( the particles may be virtual or real) even virtual particles will not simultaneously fill every void in that cubic metre. This is where forces differ from sound waves which require a medium.

Fun calculator

Eventually BHs will radiate assuming Hawking radiation is correct. Even then though a bh will go out in a whimper rather than an explosion.

You've gotten some good questions. First off our most likely end of death for the universe is heat death. If the universe continues to have accelerating expansion. By heat death we mean extremely cold. How our universe expands is determined in a large part by thermodynamic interactions. As the universe expands its overall density and temperatures decreases. What we refer to curvature directly relates to our overall density compared to a critical density. The critical density formula being. [latex]\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}[/latex] This however is prior to the cosmological constant. (Further detail on curvature including distance measure can be found here) http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/universe-geometry Page 2 http://cosmology101.wikidot.com/geometry-flrw-metric/ Those two pages will explain how curvature work with distance measures in the FLRW metric. Now each contributor to total density has its own equation of state. Further details here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) Note radiation exerts a pressure influence but matter does not. The Higgs field can use the scalar modelling equation on that last link. One of the key equations of the FLRW metric is the acceleration equation is given as [latex]\frac{\ddot{a}}{a}=-\frac{4\pi G\rho}{3c^2}(\rho c^2+3p)[/latex] This leads to [latex]H^2=\frac{\dot{a}}{a}=\frac{8\pi G\rho}{3c^2}-\frac{kc^2p}{R_c^2a^2}[/latex] With above equations ( including links) you can calculate rate of expansion with whatever combination you desire. There is another detail. As the universe expands the density of radiation,matter and the cosmological constant fall off at different rates. The region under the square root of this equation. [latex]H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}[/latex] Show that matter and radiation density while decreases the cosmological constant does not. So even when neither matter nor radiation contribute to expansion the cosmological constant will continue to do so. Now why is matter causing expansion a surprise. Well if you look at the equation of state it has a pressure contribution of zero. So what keeps matter from collapsing under its own self gravity? Particularly in a matter only universe. Well the first thing we have to be clear on is pressure doesn't cause expansion. You require pressure gradients for that to happen. Which would entail a net flow. Which isnt isotropic nor homogenous. The fluid type we use in thermodynamic application is adiabatic and isentropic. If you look at the last equation we see that the density of matter drops off. As the average density drops off the ability for gravity to cause compression decreases. Now think back to the critical density and the acceleration equation as to how that relation works with expansion

😁

Lol just a side note I could easily come up with an Eather theory that would be 100% impossible to prove or disprove. However it would also be 100% useless.

I dont the only problem is quantizing gravity on the particle level. If anything quantum gravity will simply allow us a means to further fine tune GR. However thats a huge difference between quantum gravity vs GR. Compared to GR vs Eather. Eather has no experimental support of existence

Time is needed as a vector coordinate in order to model the combination of time dilation and length contraction on a given coordinate system. The 4 *4 matrix are necessary when you fully understand GR. The fact is we know time isnt the same for all observers so you need to account for this

One can use the FLRW metric to model any form of homogeneous and isotropic universe. Matter only, Lambda only, matter removed, radiation only, No dark matter or any other combinations. The usage is to isolate the influence each has on the expansion and contraction rates. The results are surprising as it shows that even a universe comprised entirely of just matter will expand. Just as a universe of nothing but radiation albiet a different rate. A good detailed coverage is Barbera Rydens "Introductory to Cosmology" she details every combination. Each combination can be done on any curvature flat, positive or negative curved.

What does interstellar medium have to do with an Ether? Perhaps you had better look at what an Ether really describes. You keep drawing incorrect conclusions based on feelings rather than science

Either that or simply lived near a volcano and noticed that heat melts rocks. Copper being noticeable due to coloration would peak an interest. Interest leading to experimentation.

Energy is the property of an object, particle or system to perform work. It is not a thing unto itself. Just like mass does not exist without being the mass of an object, particle or system. To state energy has momentum is garbage. It would be like stating momentum, charge, force etc can exist on its own

If you want a good example think of the rate a charge moves through a copper wire. Yet the flow of electrons is limitted by the medium.

No Mike electromagnetic radiation does not require a medium to propogate. An electromagnetic field changes strength as the field propogates from a to b. I think the problem is you keep thinking of particles as little bullets. A particle is an excitation. Lets look at it this way assign a virtual photon at every point in space. Now if the value is zero you have no virtual photon present at that coordinate. The field itself is attached to the spacetime coordinates. So the field itself isn't moving. (Keep in mind this is a mathematical analogy). The wave itself progogates through that zero value field. This causes excitations at the coordinates being measured. Those excitations take on particle characteristics in particular virtual photons. However you can't think of photons as being little bullets its an excitation. If you have a zero value field you have zero particles at any coordinate. This is completely different than whats describes as a medium or Ether. Those two terms require a non zero value. Which a field can be of zero value.

In this your correct. Thats why research is still actively hunting for eather. However there still isn't any findings even at extremely precise tests. Considering the number of different tests and that extreme accuracy. I would say its largely debunked. At least till evidence shows otherwise.

One of the problems I've always had on eather supporters is they tend to think science stopped at the M and M test. Quite frankly that test never had a high degree of accuracy. Thankfully science didn't stop there. The modern tests have a far far higher degree of accuracy. One of the more modern tests being Robertson-Mansouri-Sexl tests. Which if I recall is roughly 2000 times more accurate. However other more modern tests have further refined any aberation error bars to less than 10^-15. That says a lot for the constancy of c. Some tests have even showed a higher degree of accuracy for constancy of c. Coleman and Glashow, Cosmic ray and Neutrino Tests of Special Relativity, For example gave results of 5*10^-23.

The Lorentz transformation I posted above work for SR as well as GR. The main difference between SR and GR is that one observer is assumed to be at rest. Though there are corrections to SR for a moving observer. The coordinate system of an observer at rest is the Euclidean (flat) coordinate system which is in Cartesian coordinates (Minkowskii). Though whats not often mentioned is GR use of tensors do not rely on any coordinate system. They work in all coordinate systems. An oversimplification is SR shows us how to transform from Cartesian to polar coordinates. The polar coordinate representing the relativistic object. (Fundamentally this is whats meant behind curved spacetime) as polar coordinates are essentailly curved Euclidean coordinates. Take a flat map and fold it onto a ball. The curvature is the curvature of the ball which will change by the amount of Lorentz factor

The 3 dimensional model is accurate in everyday applications. Its only when you need to model relativistic effects when the 4d becomes necessary. For example the average person doesnt need to know the time dilation between your feet and head in everyday use. So even though the 4d is more accurate. Its unnecessary for everyday applications such as the age of your individual body parts The way it would be linked would be different as you probably wouldnt need to alter the spatial components. Ie no curvature If you model spacetime as coordinate points. 4d. Time dilation and length contraction both occur. ( Time being the fourth coordinate.) So when you involve length contraction, from coordinate to coordinate the velocity doesn't change. What changes is the number of coordinates from a to b. (Sort of) Lorentz transformation. First two postulates. 1) the results of movement in different frames must be identical 2) light travels by a constant speed c in a vacuum in all frames. Consider 2 linear axes x (moving with constant velocity and [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] (at rest) with x moving in constant velocity v in the positive [latex]\acute{x}[/latex] direction. Time increments measured as a coordinate as dt and [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] using two identical clocks. Neither [latex]dt,d\acute{t}[/latex] or [latex]dx,d\acute{x}[/latex] are invariant. They do not obey postulate 1. A linear transformation between primed and unprimed coordinates above in space time ds between two events is [latex]ds^2=c^2t^2=c^2dt-dx^2=c^2\acute{t}^2-d\acute{x}^2[/latex] Invoking speed of light postulate 2. [latex]d\acute{x}=\gamma(dx-vdt), cd\acute{t}=\gamma cdt-\frac{dx}{c}[/latex] Where [latex]\gamma=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}[/latex] Time dilation dt=proper time ds=line element since [latex]d\acute{t}^2=dt^2[/latex] is invariant. an observer at rest records consecutive clock ticks seperated by space time interval [latex]dt=d\acute{t}[/latex] she receives clock ticks from the x direction separated by the time interval dt and the space interval dx=vdt. [latex]dt=d\acute{t}^2=\sqrt{dt^2-\frac{dx^2}{c^2}}=\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}dt[/latex] so the two inertial coordinate systems are related by the lorentz transformation [latex]dt=\frac{d\acute{t}}{\sqrt{1-(\frac{v}{c})^2}}=\gamma d\acute{t}[/latex] So the time interval dt is longer than interval [latex]d\acute{t}[/latex] Here are the Lorentz transformations [latex]\acute{t}=\frac{t-vx/c^2}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{x}=\frac{x-vt}{\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}}[/latex] [latex]\acute{y}=y[/latex] [latex]\acute{z}=z[/latex]