Mordred

The BB theory doesn't actually describe how the universe came into existence. We can only describe how and why it expands from 10^{-43} seconds onward.

You wouldn't see an edge, in the case of bubble universes or Hubble bubbles due to eternal inflation. What you will have is regions of differing expansion rates.

It would certainly help as there are numerous formulas needing good testing related to galaxy rotation curves and the core cusp problem.

Totally your choice however you cannot fault us for trying to teach you the SM as to how a TOE is defined and applied which has nothing to do with spiritualism nor old outdated beliefs. Best of luck

Nothing here is applying physics for starters alchemy Earth, air fire and water has nothing to do with modern physics and nothing to do with quantum gravity or the two slit experiment. Cross posted with Swansont

! Moderator Note Personal theories belong in their own thread in Speculations and must adhere to the Speculation guidelines in the pinned threads at the top of the Speculation forum. When answering questions in other posters threads all answers are required to be mainstream answers. To answer with personal theories amounts to thread hijacking which is just one of the reasons for that rule. That being stated your more than welcome to ask any related questions were happy to help you learn. If your not particularly familiar with DM as understood by current research.

It was and your likely correct on that. It's been quite a few years since I last looked at any TeVeS literature.

That was over a decade ago it would be tricky to find those earlier comparisons. The bullet cluster and Spiral galaxies were often used in arguments of which is the better treatment between LCDM and MOND. Most of the recent papers are now using later versions of MOND which has undergone numerous changes over the last decade. Some versions of MOND include DM as well. If I recall it tied into the cusp core core problem which MOND required extensions to handle. So nowadays the first question one has to address when doing comparisons is "which version of MOND ?" Though I don't keep up with MOND research I do occasionally examine their articles in the interest of looking for mathematical methodologies. It's one of the primary reasons I examine alternative theories as more often than not one cones across treatments that can be useful in other applications. For example one alternate theory not mentioned yet was Poplowskii BH universe origin papers if I recall he tried addressing both DM and DE using torsion. However the constraints on a torsion component in our universe global metric is nowadays far too stringent. The mathematical techniques come in handy with certain aspects of particle characteristics. Not to mention toy universe modelling Just an aside it took me awhile to recall a MOND treatment involving GR which was one of your earlier questions. One such model is TeVeS it's been considered an alternative possible replacement of GR. Where it stands nowadays I couldn't tell you it does tie into gravitational lensing as part of its examinations

MOND does a better job than LCDM on Bullet cluster galaxies and for a time it did poorly on Spiral galaxies. However that has been dealt with in the case of MOND. What MOND needs to improve is galaxy clusters and early universe LSS formation processes where DM under LCDM is useful for that. AFAIK MOND makes no predictions on lensing.

Very well described +1 thankfully there is a handy trick for summing those amplitudes called the Cassimer trick. The squiggly internal lines are what's referred to as the propogator action. This is also where virtual particles are described. The operator action are the external solid lines. (An operator must have a minimal of a quanta of action.) This is an example of a one loop integral. \[\vec{v}_e+p\longrightarrow n+e^+\] \[\array{ n_e \searrow&&\nearrow n \\&\leadsto &\\p \nearrow && \searrow e^2}\] The internal line in this case is the S-channel described by the earlier link I posted (first one on renormalization). The self interactions of gravity causes ever increasing propogator action so you get unwanted terms in the propogator or S-channel action leading to Faadeev Popoff ghost fields. Though you will typically have some ghost field it's minimal for EM strong force etc. However due to the self interaction Migl mentioned those unwanted terms become infinite. The needed counter term used to normalize is increasing in the gravity case whereas in the EM case the counter term is fixed. In essence the propogator or S Channel is divergent If anyone is interested a way to learn about Faddeev Popoff ghost fields is to study BRST quantization. A couple further hints in case someone wishes to learn the mathematics of renormalization with Pauli Villars and other methods you will also need to perform a Wick rotation. You will encounter two boundaries Dirichlet and Neumann boundaries which collectively is used in the Cauchy Boundaries. Any good Calculus textbook covers these. Those boundaries are also used in String theory as well. Unfortunately true and we do seem to get a lot of those attempts here lol though typically never the related math lmao.

That's not correct by any means.

The term infinitisimal is your pointlike object. We get divergences prior to R=0 that's an extreme case example. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal#:~:text=In common speech%2C an infinitesimal,zero by any available means. Here is a little hint every infinite quantity has a finite portion. An effective cutoff is just prior to that quantity becoming infinite. So zero makes a good IR cutoff in the set of Real numbers but the UV cutoff would be infinite-1. That statement would make the set of Real numbers finite from an infinite set. With fields however it's not that simple but the premise is the same. If you have further questions on renormalization I would recommend a new thread so we don't hijack this one from the OP @JohnM29111 I read your article though normally I wouldn't as all material should be posted here in compliance of our forum rules. Quite frankly you have zero chance of getting a peer review level on that article. I sincerely hope your goal is to get it more in tune with modern physics. If your hope is that it will be accepted by the professional physics community you have a ton of revamping to do. That's an honest opinion Earlier I had stopped reading once I recognized you based your premise on the Bohr model. Reading further just made matters worse. Particularly when you include things like spiritual plane, angelic plane and all the spiritualism behind it and trying to include it into a TOE. All I can say is good luck on that in those aspects.

Not sure what you mean but under GR one can have a series of clocks along the null geodesic (proper time). The FLRW metric does something similar except the clocks are viewed by a commoving observer. As INow mentioned one must also specify the observer.

Truthfully I never think of anyone as dummies though lol regardless of how crazy some posters sound in Speculation. One might believe the graviton would solve the issue but unfortunately that's not true. A good example using stellar objects is the singularity condition of a BH at R=0. We do not know any limit to the mass term nor a limit on mass density. In math speak we have no effective UV (ultraviolet cutoff). We do have an effective IR (infrared cutoff). One of the easiest example to learn renormalization is the quantum harmonic oscillator. If one resolves the integrals at every possible coordinate in momentum space one would get infinite energy. So we must apply some form of renormalization to prevent this (Pauli Villars method being the easiest) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauli–Villars_regularization https://fma.if.usp.br/~burdman/QFT1/lecture_23.pdf The last link will detail a one loop integral and regularization/renormalization. Unfortunately the paper by Hooft is tricky to read in format but it's one of the higher cited articles on renormalizing gravity for one loop but not higher loop. https://cds.cern.ch/record/261104/files/CM-P00049196.pdf

Divergent free under loop integrals. We can keep one loop integrals divergent free not second loop or higher integrals regardless of normalization or dimensional regularization method. Unfortunately to understand that one must be familiar with Feymann integrals. Though when one learns renormalization one learns the renormalization scheme is arbitrary for mathematical convenience. You can choose any method for example with the EM field etc.

Yes what of it? Its not sufficient to overturn QFT. Have you looked at Mosely law for orbitals under spectography and ever noticed the law required corrections even though the law was originally developed under the Bohr model ? There is numerous experimental examples where the Bohr model does not work. A very commonly known one is the spin of an electron exceeding c under the Bohr treatment. I recognize you reached your first day limit on posts. Swansont already addressed the other points you made. I'm hoping with 45 pages most of those pages roughly 50 percent or greater has the applicable mathematics and not reliant on pictures and verbal descriptives without mathematical detail. In the mean time you might consider looking at some of the more recent images of atoms you can clearly see the structure does not match the Bohr model. However none of this changes what a TOE entails. I have zero hope you found a means to renormalize gravity or done a running of the coupling constants to unify the four fundamental forces. If you had then post your Langrangian statement

Truth of the matter, if Speculative posters understood that a TOE is a completed grand unification theory where all four forces become symmetric and indistinct from one another. We likely would never see a TOE thread. They would hit the inability to renormalize gravity beyond one loop integrals.

I hate to break this to you but what you have though is impressive in detail isn't what is meant by a TOE under physics treatment. You can also throw away any Bohr model of atoms. Particles are not little bullet like objects. QFT teaches us that particles are field excitations not bullet like objects

Anyone that relies on ChatGPD isn't learning anything. In point of detail far more likely to get misinformed and misled. I would have thought better progress would have been made since this threads origin. Let's try a different angle in terms of entropy (Used for ordered to disordered systems.) I have some system state doesn't matter what it is. A system where all motion is identical. This can be described as one effective degrees of freedom. Under some influence you start getting motion in different directions. Each new direction adds another effective degree of freedom however there is methods to limit the random motions to the effective degrees of freedom (part of dimensional reduction) one might state that's simply for ease of calculations but it goes beyond that. For example take a stick a keep one end on the ground. You can limit all the possible movements to just 2 spatial dimensions. Those two dimensions will also equate to the angle if the stick so there isn't any need to count the angle as a degree of freedom. The angle isn't an independent movement. I recommend you start with mechanical systems for degrees of freedom before tackling effective degrees of freedom under the SM model. (Directly relates to gauge groups ). The above can also be applied to brownian motion. You know you are on the right track if you can answer why the entropy immediately after the BB using Maxwell-Boltzmann is only 2.

For fusion there is a useful relation that determines the ignition temperature called Lawson criterion. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion This is the point where fusion is self sustaining ie net energy exceeds supplied energy.

As no one expresses an interest in having this diagram in one of the locked threads above. I will let the proposal go.

I have to admit the design is intriguing we will have to see how it works outside the simulation.

The Planck probe is designed specifically for CMB measurements with the filter arrays it's equipped with. For its use with standard candles for example it would need a substantial overhaul.

I have come across papers using methods such as F(R) gravity to eliminate the need for DM they typically don't look far enough. Example they will focus on rotation curves but not look into early universe DM needs such as early universe LSS formation.

Well in this instance the cosmocalc in my signature can perform the common calculations of the FLRW metric and allows one to play around with the cosmological parameters. It has a few preset parameters such as the Planck dataset , WMAP etc. It will also allow future predictions up to 80 Billion years into the future assuming nothing changes in terms of the parameters. Though there are a few tricks. One trick is that the blackbody temperature of the CMB is the inverse of the scale factor. So if you know the scale factor at a particular cosmic time then it's trivial to calculate the blackbody temperature at that time. The metric wasn't designed that way it was later discovered that trick works. Referring to the FLRW metric not the calculator.