Mordred

After some digging I found a thesis paper on the subject. Be forewarned it's heavy on the QM regime mathematics. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=19&ved=0CDkQFjAIOAo&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ifw-dresden.de%2Fuserfiles%2Fgroups%2Fitf_folder%2FHelmut_Eschrig%2Fp.pdf&rct=j&q=quasi%20particles%20principles%20pdf&ei=CtxvVejbNsjRoATxwoOgBA&usg=AFQjCNEqTemavUPC5an-Ua21kEf-BYoJBA&sig2=te8Y1Skdr5x2DeGVXUqb7Q However this is probably more appropriate as it deals with wave functions extensively.

Great except science has this thing called "Dont trust your senses. Apply measurements. Then apply mathematics to show how those measurements can be predicted.

Studiot likes to learn just as anyone else does. Ajb is one of our best mathematicians.

What defines a solid other than density? Well one way to define it is via the dominance of the electromagnetic force. In a solid the electromagnetic force and how it interacts with an electron far exceeds that of the Higgs field. To the point where the Higgs field would have negligible influence upon an electron, compared to the electromagnetic force. This would be true even in waveform. Now how is mass defined? Mass is resistance to inertia. So in a solid the major influence of mass on an electron is the binding energy(confinement) of the electromagnetic force. Inside a proton the majority of the binding energy upon quarks is the strong force. So the majority of its mass is due to the strong force. In the latter case only 1% the mass of the proton is due to the Higgs field. Now how is a particle categorized? Via its properties. Spin, charge, rest mass, and interactions ie color and flavor etc. So if any of these properties change you have a different particle. In the case of quasi particles they do not exist without the specified interactions. An electron however can exist on its own. Hence its classified as a real particle. The electron can even exist without a Higgs field. Can all particles be considered as quasi particles. Possibly but as quasi particles is a combination of particle and interaction you would significantly need to increase the number of particles. Each different combination would require a different name. Sounds like Occams razor favors the SM model to me. (By the way this thread is refreshing, not often you get good solid debates/conversations going on forums) usually one pushes his personal ideas ahead of established models and theories without learning why the standard models and theories work and why they work +1 Thus far your questions have been well thought out.

Here is something to consider. Take a telescope pick a star, now you have the problem. How far away is that star. So to determine that one technique is redshift. However for redshift you need an original frequency. So you look at known elements. Hydrogen spectral lines are handy. Already you have to use calculated values. The cosmological redshift formula. One cannot use visual data to measure the universe directly. You always have to find ways to calculate and determine distance.

You have a point however it breaks down to confinement. In the case under discussion are discussing the Crystal lattice structure of solids. Free space has (gas) has far greater degrees of freedom. Essentially their movement is not confined. If you look under the wiki page you linked they specify solids to free space. Polarons emerge in solids not free space. Although both can be modelled under the ideal gas laws, the degrees of freedom of particles and mean free path of particles is far more restrictive in solids. In the case of the Higgs field the standard metrics is a nonzero scalar vacuum. We certainly cannot think of a solid as a vacuum. Quasi particles are specifically a specified (particle + interaction). Take a closer look at the descriptions of each quasi particle type on the list I provided.

Didn't I also state you account for age? I did mention the scale factor and post the distance formula in 4d. All datasets must account for observer influences. This includes time "You calculate the proper distance between two or more measurement points. Any time you take any measurements you must account for observer influences. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex]" This was posted in a previous post this thread.

Why do I think your still misunderstanding? The cosmological principle has nothing to do with how the universe evolves over time. It is specifically describing the distribution of thermodynamic processes and distribution of matter at specific moments in time. We can directly measure today's temperature. It's the temperature of our local group. We can also confirm the universe expands by taking measurements further and further back in time. Just as we can measure the change in distance measurements and redshift.

Neither is correct, both are overusing the balloon analogy. Whose only sole purpose is to provide a geometric example of a homogeneous and isotropic separation distance between measuring points. In the balloon analogy one must not think in terms of edge, outside or inside the balloon. The analogy is only accurate to describe the dots drawn on the balloon, and how they expand from one dot to another. The universe itself has no known size or edge. It may be finite or infinite. We simply do not know which. Here is a handy site that lists some of the common misconceptions of the balloon analogy. http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/: A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf:Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell I included the second article as it too discusses the balloon analogy in good detail

You need to be careful here, quasi particles are emergent phenomenon. The polariton and polaron, the first being bosonic, the latter being fermionic. Are not considered real particles. They are I guess you could say bookkeeping descriptives of the interaction influence the Crystal lattice has upon photons and electrons travelling through solids. The polariton and polaron are also strictly involved in electromagnetic interactions. Not all particles will interact with the polariton and polaron. For that matter not all particles interact with the Higgs field. In the case of the polaron it is a quasi particle that exhibits all the same characteristics of am electron but with a different mass. This is only when travelling through solids. The quasi particle state is a collection of complicated interactions with the electron or photon. In free space the electron gains its mass via the Higgs field interactions. One handy note on quasi particles. By the following definition. "an entity, as an exciton or phonon, that interacts with elementary particles, but does not exist as a free particle." So what this means is that quasi particles exhibit particle like characteristics due to interactions but they themselves are not particles. Ie particles in free space. This site has a handy analogy of quasi particles. (Soap bubble) http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/486549/quasiparticle Here is a handy list of quasi particles. Though probably not a complete list. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_quasiparticles

Not really that negligable. Try to understand a key detail. If you look further and further away, your naturally looking further back in time. In this context one can state there is a preferred direction but this isn't entirely accurate. The further you look back in time the denser the universe will appear. This isn't what the Cosmological Principle is really stating. One way to think of it is, " At any specific moment in time, the universe is homogeneous and isotropic." This includes key dynamics such as those involved in thermodynamic processes, or the ideal gas laws. Pressure, temperature, energy density and expansion. The CMB is one such moment. However any point in time will have a uniform density throughout the universe. Today that critical density is roughly 10^29 grams/cubic metre with average blackbody temperature of 2.73 Kelvin. Using the equations of the FLRW metric one can use density as our clock. Fundamentally cosmic time does just that.

Lol oops, evidently I hadn't completely woken up lol

A good discussion on manifolds is done by Sean Carroll. http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/March01/Carroll3/Carroll2.html

Lol

Lol if you didn't understand or follow that article portion. Regardless of notation or otherwise. Then that portion definetely needs a major revamp and rethink.

Not quite, light takes roughly 326 light years to travel 100 Mpc. The changes in that time period is negligible compared to the age of the universe. So one can say roughly the same age. However when you take your measurements. You calculate the proper distance between two or more measurement points. Any time you take any measurements you must account for observer influences. [latex]d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})d{r^2}+{S,k}{r^2}d\Omega^2[/latex] Here is the 4d Freidmann equation for distance measures. K is the curvature constant. a(t^2) is the scale factor which takes expansion at a point in time into account. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_factor_(cosmology) Note the scale factor also accounts for cosmological redshift. Any specific point in time will have the thermodynamic properties. The universe will be roughly the same temperature throughout. (Though the temperature variations isn't significant in 326 years, except in the early universe) You cannot directly see the same point in time throughout the universe. So you must calculate where objects will be at that point in time. I really wish I could post the charts from the lightcone calculator in my signature. However one can use that tool to see the changes in 326 years. For some reason this site doesn't like the latex the calc uses. You can refine the time period being calculated via the S_upper and S_lower values.

Sorry to me your not being very clear. Let's start with a basic question on photons. Lets assume a multibody problem. In compression are you referring to the waveforms? Or are you deferring to individual particles? Yes this is a trick question. Treat it as "how is a particle defined? Question How is this different from particle to particle interactions? Which analysis are you using? Either the transport of mass, energy or wave functions. (Other none OP transports aside). Forget trying to describe your model via a word salad. Use mathematics and specific interactions. Quite frankly if you want to convince anyone you need predictability. You can't have that without a proper math descriptive. Containing predictive levels of cause a leads to cause b. Does some of particle physics follow rotations similar to the geometry of spring dynamics ? Absolutely. Can you show those examples mathematically? Well I leave that in your hands. This far what I've read the answer is no. Feel free to correct me. I don't take insult. Lol do me and everyone else a fav. latex is far easier to read. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/3751-quick-latex-tutorial/page-3#entry115211 pain in the butt I agree but highly recommended

Good methodology , being used to mnemonics I would of suggested a less obvious method.( lol I tend to think in terms of Boolean logic circuits) Yours is the better and more suited methodology. (I will leave this in your more than capable hands)

I incorporated some of the suggested changes. In the opening post. Please review. Any suggestions welcome including syntax and writing style. Don't worry I don't bite, I fully expect a site forum FAQ article to undergo numerous adjustments.

that statement should have read a property of particles not mass lol oops. Missed that. I am working on this aspect, originally I had planned on including the metric and curvature tensor as defined in an arbitrary coordinate system of a point (test particle). The problem I've run into is simplifying the metric for the average reader. True, again the problem is keeping the article simple yet accurate. I agree more detail on the coordinate aspects of GR is needed for the article, which may be best to apply the Lorentz transformation from two examples from flat and in the Schwartchild metric. On the quantum foam aspects, it's looking like a link to a separate thread may be best. On note on the metric section here is what I have thus far and I'm reconsidering how to go about this section. GR matrix transformations In General Relativity the metric is seemingly complex. One must understand that GR is a coordinate system. When one describes bodies in motion such as planets and stars the metric of a sphere is useful. However at some point one must use an arbitrary coordinate metric. Recalling that GR has the time component as a coordinate as well. Coordinates in GR take the form (ct,x,y,z) this leads to a 4x4 matrix. For the moment we are ignoring everything but the exact specific real numbers the components of the metric take at a single point. Lets define a point as [math]x^\alpha[/math] and our new coordinate as [math]y^{\mu}[/math] these simple coordinates leads to [math]g_{\mu\nu}=g_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{dx^{\alpha}}{dy^{\mu}}\frac{dx^{\beta}}{dy^{\nu}}[/math] What exactly is a matrix. The wiki definition is useful. "In mathematics, a matrix (plural matrices) is a rectangular array of numbers, symbols, or expressions, arranged in rows and columns that is treated in certain prescribed ways. The individual items in a matrix are called its elements or entries. " http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matrix_(mathematics) One example is below. Which is a 4*4 matrix Note the numeric organization. [math] A_{m,n} =\begin{pmatrix}a_{1,1} & a_{1,2} & \cdots & a_{1,n} \\a_{2,1} & a_{2,2} & \cdots & a_{2,n} \\\vdots & \vdots & \ddots & \vdots \\a_{m,1} & a_{m,2} & \cdots a_{m,n}\end{pmatrix}[/math] In GR it is common to replace m and n with [math]\mu[/math] and [math]\nu[/math] respectively. As one can see [math]\mu[/math] denotes the row and [math]\nu[/math] denotes the column. Both [math]\mu[/math] and [math]\nu[/math] are vectors. Matrix transformation examples can be found here http://www.cimt.plymouth.ac.uk/projects/mepres/alevel/fpure_ch9.pdf A more detailed 63 page article on matrix mathematics can be studied in this pdf. http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mheducation.ca%2Fcollege%2Folcsupport%2Fnicholson4%2Fnicholson4_sample_chap2.pdf&rct=j&q=matrix%20mathematics%20pdf&ei=WaBmVbjaCrDfsASK4YGwAQ&usg=AFQjCNFLoGWucTsDoKqVhBhrLWIaPeIHbw&sig2=P6W5USwrpu7eDNGAbRf4SQ. Einstein field equation Metric tensor In general relativity, the metric tensor below may loosely be thought of as a generalization of the gravitational potential familiar from Newtonian gravitation. The metric captures all the geometric and causal structure of spacetime, being used to define notions such as distance, volume, curvature, angle, future and past. [math]dx^2=(dx^0)^2+(dx^1)^2+(dx^3)^2[/math] [math]g_{\mu\nu}=\begin{pmatrix}g_{0,0}&g_{0,1}&g_{0,2}&g_{0,3}\\g_{1,0}&g_{1,1}&g_{1,2}&g_{1,3}\\g_{2,0}&g_{2,1}&g_{2,2}&g_{2,3}\\g_{3,0}&g_{3,1}&g_{3,2}&g_{3,3}\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/math] Which corresponds to [math]\frac{dx^\alpha}{dy^{\mu}}=\frac{dx^\beta}{dy^{\nu}}=\begin{pmatrix}\frac{dx^0}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^0}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^0}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^1}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^1}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^2}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^2}\\\frac{dx^0}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^1}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^2}{dy^3}&\frac{dx^3}{dy^3}\end{pmatrix}[/math] The simplest transform is the Minkowskii metric, Euclidean space or flat space. This is denoted by [math]\eta[[/math] Flat space [math]\mathbb{R}^4 [/math] with Coordinates (t,x,y,z) or alternatively (ct,x,y,z) flat space is done in Cartesian coordinates. In this metric space time is defined as [math] ds^2=-c^2dt^2+dx^2+dy^2+dz^2=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}[/math] [math]\eta=\begin{pmatrix}-c^2&0&0&0\\0&1&0&0\\0&0&1&0\\0&0&0&1\end{pmatrix}[/math] In an effort to keep this article to a manageable length I will refer to the wiki article on Lorentz transformations and its connection to SR. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation A free textbook (open source) can be found here http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/ (For the Schwartzchild Metric I was thinking of using Kruskal Szekeres coordinates.) Though it may better to stick to the Schwartzchild Metric) and just link other coordinate systems of note.

All particle interactions contribute to temperature. ( This includes the strong, weak, gravitational and chemical potential) As well as pressure to energy density temperature relations. Though non relativistic matter has a negligible contribution. These can be found via the equations of state : http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) What your describing in the electromagnet field can be modelled specifically under the electromagnetic stress energy tensor. (Includes relavistic) http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor GR however (Einstein field equations) Accounts for any form of energy momentum. See stress energy tensor. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stress%E2%80%93energy_tensor The vacuum also can have scalar only influences on pressure/energy density relations. One notable example is the Higgs field. Another being the inflaton used in inflation. Both these examples are modelled via the scalar modelling equation (see that section under the First wiki link. These articles will fill in the blanks. 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 In GUT theories, there is a specific temperature where each force becomes indistinguishable from one another, or more accurately teach thermal equilibrium. In this state the system can also be modelled as a vacuum. Then you have the vacuum expectation value, which is related to the above. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_expectation_value

First seperate the pathways into series and parallel paths. Then apply the series and parralel capacitance addition equations to each pathway circuit. Add the resultance together for the total capacitance. Series. [latex]c_t=\frac {1}{c_1}+\frac{1}{c_2}...[/latex] Parallel [latex]c_t=c_1+c_2...[/latex]

Quantum foam is also a mathematical descriptive. When you get into the details. I think it may be best to place that under the QM forum. Then provide a link to each article. Still deciding on that. Atm the curvature and stress energy tensors is giving me headaches trying to simplify them.

I just finished writing a FAQ on "What is space time made of " http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry869949 You might want to read it as treating space time as some form of fabric, medium etc is a common misconception. Thanks to pop media articles primarily.

FAQ article development, feel free to ask questions or make suggestions. (I'm still working on the Einstein field equation section. Probably keep that portion seperate to minimize length) This question is amongst one of the most commonly asked questions in relativity. Numerous articles both in pop media and peer reviewed articles refer to terms such as space time fabric, space time curvature. This leads the new learners with a common misconception that space has some mysterious fabric or material like property. To answer this properly we need to describe a few principles. A) gravity influences mass B) energy is a property of particles, or physical configurations such as feilds. Energy does not exist on its own. C) space is defined as a volume only. That volume contains the standard model particles and feilds. It is not something form of ether. In GR space is mapped in an arbitrary coordinate system. Without the time component the coordinates are in 3d. D) spacetime is any metric that includes the time component as a vector. This is the 4th dimension, in GR the time component is treated in coordinate form. E) General relativity is a coordinate system metric. This coordinate system makes use of manifolds. Which is a topological space that is resembles Euclidean space at beach point. For example a Euclidean space (flat space), can undergo a homeomorphism to curved space via relativistic effects such as inertia and mass to an observer. The rubber sheet example is one such homeomorphism. http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/users/gabor/black_holes/slide5.html A good YouTube video is http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MTY1Kje0yLg Keep in mind the rubber sheet analogy is just that. An analogy, it was never intended to state that space time is a materialistic fabric or ether. A classical example of a homeomorphism is the coordinate change from Cartesian coordinates (Euclidean flat space) to polar coordinates. (Curved, spherical geometry) https://www.mathsisfun.com/polar-cartesian-coordinates.html http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifold http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homeomorphic Now with those in mind, we find that spacetime curvature is a geometric coordinate relation of how the strength of gravity influences the particles that reside in the volume of space. In short it is a geometric description of how gravity influences particles not the volume of space. The terms fabric, curvature, sretches are misleading. They are analogies used to explain the change in geometric relations. 2) How is space time created? The volume of space simply increases, space itself is just volume filled with the standard model particles.