Mordred

Can one derive a quantum descriptive. Absolutely however they are already done. It's not obvious though as they are part of the energy tensor. Ie electromagnetic stress energy tensor. Or in the case of Cosmology stress energy momentum tensor and FLRW metric. The laws were currently dealing with is classical formulation. Everyday applications in chemistery etc. Kinetic energy and potential energy are handy to fully understand. They have carefully designed applications. The original false vacuum model involves kinetic energy it's just termed a pressure relation vacuum. A higher vaccuum region (higher energy state) false vaccuum tunnels to a lower.vacuum energy state true vacuum. Just one example Some people learn cosmology differently. Not necessarily wrong. Some prefer using LQC, or QFT they prefer describing particles in terms of wave functions or particle interactions as fields. Others prefer particle descriptives. You might find your personal way of thinking is suitable to QFT. However the math takes some getting used to. Same for QM style mathematics.

Change in amplitude is a change in frequency which will change the energy of each particle not the number of particles. You have to remember were dealing with classical particles as well. The gas laws must apply universally to complex compounds as well as single particles. So trying to change it to say a quantum description doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Also gas laws are taught in school, so it's handy to keep simpler decriptives. Also keep in mind the article I posted to you is basic statistical mechanics. Full length articles and books average 300 to 1000 pages long. I could post you a copy if you like but be forewarned the sheer volume of math will make anyone's head swim. Movement is already defined by temperature via average kinetic energy. Remember the gas laws are an averaging system. It doesn't try to predict all the dynamics of individual particles. It describes the averaged influence. Think of it this way how does one change the number of NaCl particles? In this case you need to literally add or subtract the quantity yourself. Quanta of particles won't apply in this case. Also were now dealing with atomic mass. It's best for now to study the current definitions and methodology rather than trying to reinvent the wheel as they say. One has to consider what a change in a fundamental model will affect universally over a broad spectrum of applications. Ideal gas laws are also of great importance in chemistry as well as physics. That will also explain why you see chemistery terms used, ie number of moles.

I would recommend just using volume instead of space. Volume is automatically 3d. Just a side note just reads easier as your defining the dimensions. Have a good sleep, myself I'm enjoying a few drinks lol(Units are extremely important in physics)

Yes it does I must have misread somewhere. My apologies however you don't need the portion seemed increased. Increase of pressure also increases temperature. Temperature is an increase in average kinetic energy. Key note average. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/?title=Temperature

Your point under number two is inacurrate. Pressure seems to give you trouble. It's inaccurate as you can't increase pressure without increasing the number of collisions or force of each collision. Other than that good thus far You just need to look at how units are defined. However you are catching on

Mole. The Mole A mole (abbreviated mol) of a pure substance is a mass of the material in grams that is numerically equal to the molecular mass in atomic mass units (amu). A mole of any material will contain Avogadro's number of molecules. For example, carbon has an atomic mass of exactly 12.0 atomic mass units http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/kinetic/idegas.html

This last part makes no sense. Pressure is force per unit volume. In terms of particles it's the averaging of the force of particle to particle collisions per unit volume. Or in the first articles mannerisms collisions on the container walls (could just be the wording in the quoted parts, translation thingy lol) Say for example you have a hypothetical particle that never interacts with other particles including itself. This particle never has collisions. So it can never deliver any force, a multi particle collection of this particles pressure influence will always be zero. Of course this particle doesn't exist ( lol if it did it would be impossible to contain or detect it. Too sci fi but it's a hypothetical example to show the principle of pressure) If you increase the number of moles of particles you increase its density and the number of collisions. If the number of collisions is constant heavier particles will deliver more force per collision. If you increase the Temperature the particles gain kinetic energy so the number of collisions also increases. If you increase the volume the number of collisions decreases. Here lets use this This law has the following important consequences: If temperature and pressure are kept constant, then the volume of the gas is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas. If the temperature and volume remain constant, then the pressure of the gas changes is directly proportional to the number of molecules of gas present. If the number of gas molecules and the temperature remain constant, then the pressure is inversely proportional to the volume. If the temperature changes and the number of gas molecules are kept constant, then either pressure or volume (or both) will change in direct proportion to the temperature. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_laws http://www.indiana.edu/~geog109/topics/10_Forces&Winds/GasPressWeb/PressGasLaws.html

A couple of points you missed. Pressure is a measure of force per unit volume. If you increase the space you decrease the pressure and temperature. They are talking the mass of the individual particles not number of particles. More massive particles require greater force to move than lighter particles. F=ma applies. Less massive particles at a given pressure will gain greater momentum at a given pressure than massive particles. One thing to be careful of is thermodynamic state. Certain properties in thermaldynamic systems are state functions. Ie entropy and enthalpy. ( The last is more a side note. When studying the ideal gas laws state functions can trip you up) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_function Also remember particles can gain or lose inertial mass. We're not dealing with rest mass.

Could you post which remarks, I'm currently using mobile version being near the North pole catching occassional signals. Telus tower coverage up here is poor lol.

Not quite how cosmology determined universe geometry involves pressure yes. The metric of flat geometry is determined by the critical density formula. The pressure term comes into play mainly in expansion rates. If the universe actual density equals the calculated critical density the universe is flat. Pressure comes into play as energy density has a pressure relation via the equations of state. [latex]w=\frac{\rho}{p}[/latex] The critical density formula calculation involves both gravity and pressure. Later on I'll post how it's derived. I'll have to show the stress tensor relations as part of it.

( key note the equations of state for a particular era is an average of particle contributors with their degrees of freedom) ie in the radiation dominant era. The main contributors is photons and neutrinos. ( matter is negligible in influence during this era) (Hint if you have questions on the first article, particularly on enthalpy and entropy post the question in the classical forum. Studiot love's answering these) By the way +1 for showing a strong interest in studying I may pick up a copy Somehow 60+ various physics textbooks isn't enough lol

Well sometimes the simpler the better leaves out critical details. However we can cover pressure, entropy, energy/mass density etc using statistical mechanics and the FLRW metric and save the stress energy tensor for later on. After thinking about it the mannerism to learn this is better suited to the right sequence of articles specifically covering the ideal gas laws. When you read these keep in mind all particles with momentum can exert pressure. So for the first article they will mention container walls. Obviously the universe doesn't have container walls. The pressure is a measure of interparticle interactions with each other. In other words the container wall is the particles in the same region. Now as to why relativistic radiation exerts pressure but not matter. The reason is quite simple. Relativistic radiation has greater momentum. Go through the first article. Get familiar with Pv=nRT. The second article will take you from this into the FLRW metric. Including the little steps I may miss. http://vallance.chem.ox.ac.uk/pdfs/PropertiesOfGasesLectureNotes.pdf http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/research/gr/members/gibbons/SPCnotes.pdf Keep in mind ideal gas laws is a method of averaging complex multiparticle systems to good approximation. You'll note the last article also covers universe geometry.

Not quite. The moderators look for reliable supporting sources. Videos or opinions don't count as such.

Just be careful Lee Smolin likes to push his own models. I do respect his articles but they can distract from mainstream physics, which should be the first step to understand. (This does make understanding of other models simpler) Or rather concordance acceptance, ( what one can learn via textbooks). Basics first alternative later. Or as they say eat the Apple one bite at a time.

Kk I'm in flight right now I'll work out the ideal gas laws for you to correlate pressure, entropy, temperature etc in terms of particle influence in an adiabatic fluid.

I have a question for you. Do you find this level of mathematics comfortable enough to relate to ? I can post the ideal gas laws in the same structure and format and tie it into universe geometry if you can relate to the coordinate system above. The links I provided on the Higgs simplifying the Higgs field does a better job than I would. I tend to overcomplicate the Higgs interactions. Although you don't agree with LCDM itself. I would recommend learning first the FLRW metric. Trust me from personal experience, the FLRW metric is far easier to understand than the Einstein field equations, or field and string theories.

No problem. This site has a free to distribute textbook on SR. It's probably one of the less math heavy training books available. The author is a member on another forum I frequent. http://www.lightandmatter.com/sr/

Ok let's look at the Lorentz transform itself in some detail. ( This will take some time to post) 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] Now consider the above and consider the equivalence principle https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle This should help with your last post.

Too lengthy I didn't feel like writing a book. Lol. I already supplied those. Its probably better discussing each point seperately rather than a one shot effort.

1 2 are fine. On three mass and energy has equivelence via e=mc^2 4 well I'm not going to repeat myself a third time spacetime is not some mysterious fabric. http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/89395-what-is-space-made-of/#entry870133 5 and 6 are incorrect. You need to look at the problem as a coordinate change. GR is modelled on terms of coordinate rotations and boosts. Google Lorentz transformation. 6 is completely wrong....except the part not a hole. 7 I can live with in terms of volume/coordinate change. 8) I assume you mean the singularity itself. Unfortunately not completely accurate. The collapse is an artifact of the chosen coordinate system. It is possible to change the coordinate system to avoid the singularity issue. 9) is wrong. Any mass body can technically form a BH. If it's radius falls below its Schwartzchild radius. 10) is wrong e=mc^2. Mass and energy are equivelent. Matter is any particle that occupies a volume of space. Google Pauli exclusion principle. Fermions are considered matter particles. Bosons are not. 11) clarity I can't make heads or tails out of that statement. 12)yes but I don't believe you understand what universe curvature means as you don't place any value in the critical density formula. Nor in vaccuum/pressure to energy density relations via the Einstein field equations stress energy tensor. 13 and 14 are wrong. 15 is wrong as well or so poorly worded it reads as wrong. 16 weight depends on the gravitational force where you measure it. If you weigh a 1 ton brick on Earth at sea level. That same brick won't weigh 1 ton on the moon.( really this is extremely basic physics terminology. Mass is not weight) 17) I can consider that statement accurate. Which confuses me why you didn't correlate the mass energy relation in numbers 3 and 10? 18 and 19 are wrong, this is according to your ideas and model. Not mainstream physics. 20) by which inflation model? Certainly not in any of the 70+ viable inflation models in "inflationaris Encyclopedia" I posted to you previously. Sounds like your own once again. 21 to 28 is all based on your ideas and quite frankly you don't understand particle symmetry and gauge couplings/group theory to make those determinations. If you did you would have already posted the required math. Lie algebra isn't terribly difficult. For that matter the matrix calculations in the SO(3)* SO(2)*U(1) covers the standard model groups. SO(3.1) being also the Lorentz group. (This group doesn't include the Higgs interactions) Just a side note your definition of a vector is wrong on your previous post. A vector is a scalar quantity with a direction. 26 27 and 28 is wrong. so is 29 and 30 Guess you didn't learn much. Might be time to read the mainstream physics articles. ( instead of letting your personal model get in the way of learning) By the way I do study non mainstream articles all the time. The author however must show a clear understanding of the mainstream physics before I consider them as being viable. (Must also include the related mathematics) That list includes MOND, trespace, Poplowskii's universe inside an EH. AFD/CFT, LQC is potentially close enough to mainstream that I consider it. F® gravity etc etc. Little hint any peer reviewed article compares its model against the current recognized concordance model in any application. You can learn a ton from those correlations. Poplowskii did a great job modelling a homogeneous and isotropic universe with spin and torsion. However he couldn't explain early large scale structure formation within his model.

What a load of crud. The Planck data confirms the accuracy of LCDM to an extremely high accuracy. Read their overview article. How in the world can you use the statement false notion gravity then state you accept GR:?: You make mistakes and inconsistent responses like tbis. Post absolutely zero zip mathematics and expect professional Scientists to consider your ideas??:? Come on get real. Study. I supplied you with a full length textbook. Learn how gravity and vaccuum aka pressure determines expansion. Study the ideal gas laws. Read the overview of Cosmology link. Read chapter 3 of particle physics of the Early universe. 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/0409426An 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 in every one of these professional peer reviewed articles. Pressure is explained. Photons and neutrinos even your quarks and gluons exert pressure. All relativistic particles do. In the Early universe when there are free quarks they exert pressure. Today there is no free quarks. Matter is pressureless. Never heard the term pressure less dust? They are referring to baryonic matter. Why because it's % of influence in expansion is too miniscule to count. Only fermions count as matter particles via the Pauli exclusion principle. Your personal feelings means nothing to professional Scientists. You can either learn why they accept the current models. Or not. You won't convince anyone unless you can mathematically compare your model to thiers. Which means you must first learn their models. This is a necessary step as no one will listen till they can accept that you truly understand the current models. It would be like saying I don't agree with relativity because I don't understand it. Here is my solution. Which is what your stating about the Higgs field. I don't accept it because I don't understand it. Here is my solution. Why would anyone listen to that? Maybe this series of articles will help. https://briankoberle...-four-horsemen/ https://briankoberle...nce-of-the-hag/ https://briankoberle...orge-of-heaven/ https://briankoberle...-of-other-days/ https://briankoberle...radle-to-grave/ On the series below he covers the Higgs field in one of his site links with and without the math. http://profmattstras...-higgs-faq-2-0/ http://profmattstras...physics-basics/ http://profmattstrassler.com/

Let's clarify what I've read thus far. 1) You don't like mass effects mass. 2) You didn't know pressure is involved in expansion. 3) you thought the CMB colors reflected dispersion of light. 4) you argued against developing your model with thermodynamics and just wanted density. 5) you originally modelled helicity as meaning different velocities but didn't specify which particles. For that matter you indicated your model previous to 10^-43 seconds doesn't have particles just momentum. Where you tried centrifugal velocity ie 1 rotation granting (I'm not sure space time, particles or kinetic energy) Then you had that same rotation repeat without loss of momentum yet emit one of the three like some perpetual motion machine. 6) you kept using the word "explode" With regards to expansion. 7) you don't want to use space time curvature, or force in your model. Pretty impossible. Yet you claim your model works better than GR and indirectly indicated particle physics. Without posting a single equation. Instead you posted images. Which you didn't understand as being related to the anisotrophies described via redshift in the Sache Wolfe effect. Tell me are you aware of slow roll on inflation, Lets describe the sequence. 1) inflation starts cause doesn't matter. For this. 2) inflates rapidly the volume of the observable universe 60 e folds. Roughly a 10^90 times it's original volume in far less than 1 second. 3) this causes supercooling during the inflation cycle. 4) inflation slow rolls to a stop, this causes reheating. Does it matter if the universe is curved or flat prior to inflation? Does it matter if anisotrophies are present. With such a huge change in volume, pressure, density and temperature. Any pre conditions is effectively washed away. Rebalancing any anisotropic regions or curvature. I would strongly advise studying textbooks not pop media literature. When we ask for citation post peer review materials not pop media articles. They mean absolutely nothing to me. Perhaps you might want to think about how to go about describing your model better. Don't skip the essential steps. Use at least some equations to avoid confusion. The above list is based on how I've read your posts thus far.( including the thread this split from)

Why do you keep missing the key aspects on the replies. Are you doing so intentionally. We were specifically talking about the chirality theory in regards to possible different Higgs interactions leading to different momentum. We weren't questioning whether or not helicity exists. That'd the part that is still debatable. If the Higgs interaction varies sufficient enough on the right hand velocity. You effectively generate heavy fermions. Aka supersymmeyric particles. Come on mate I posted you a paper specifically discussing that. Evidently you didn't bother looking at it. Particles are defined by their momentum, mass, charge and spin. Change any one of those properties you have a different particle. Try to read some of the links I supply. I never ever reply on a forum a non mainstream answer. I leave that to those that disagree and more often than not don't truly understand why current models state what they do. Regardless of your feelings towards dark energy and dark matter. Far more professional scientists in far greater number and knowledge than anyone on this forum, have tried to disprove both. Good luck trying to do the same. The standard model of particle physics has been and still is incredibly successful of previously predicting never before seen particles and then finding them later on. GR is extremely well tested, so is LCDM. This is done via the mainstream understanding despite your personal feelings If your trying to convince me your model is better. You better get cracking on the mathematics. The misconceptions in this thread clearly tells me how little you feel about mainstream physics. As stated before gluons don't jump into our universe. There is no outside source for them to jump from. Yet you state your universe is singular. Makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. There is no proven evidence the left or right hand neutrinos have different velocies. In point of detail the mathematics support the opposite. Not right hand being faster than the left hand. Yet you refuse to accept the Higgs which can account for chirality. The lake statement doesn't make any sense. All particles are both particle like and wavelike. So how do you not have waves ie frequency waves and still have particles? You can't. GR is highly successful in that false notion you refuse to accept. Despite explaining how curvature is correctly described, which you later on stated you understood in the first place. If you did then why do you have a problem understanding the space time relation of gravity and pressure relations??? Your light diffusion analogy is another case. Which I had to correct you on. With the peer reviewed articles. You wish to describe mass without using either force or curvature, then use the force carrying gluon in your descriptive. Did the term vector gauge boson not indicate anything to you? What is energy, "the ability to perform work" what is force. "In physics, a force is any interaction that tends to change the motion of an object. In other words, a force can cause an object with mass to change its velocity (which includes to begin moving from a state of rest), i.e., to accelerate. Force can also be described by intuitive concepts such as a push or a pull. Force carrying particles are needed. As energy DOES NOT exist on its own. There is no way one particle can influence another without a mediator particle. So tell me how does your model possibly describe how matter moves without using as you stated" The outdated force"?

This however is a specific decay. Its not due to velocity itself as per se. This area is still under research so not much is truly known. The left hand neutrino and right hand neutrino form via different W bosons. The two neutrinos may also interact differently with the Higgs field via the seesaw mechanism. ( keep in mind this is still under research and ties to the B-L assymmetry.) helicity doesn't imply one side being slower than the other in the case of photon velocity. This is due to being massless. massive particles however is a different case. Neutrinos electrons etc. Yes mass is involved. due to the Higgs interaction. The mass of the right hand neutrino is still unknown. What your looking at here is chirality. It's also observer dependant. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirality_(physics) It's also why I wanted the citation (I suspected this was what you were describing, but needed clarity). Now onto Sache Wolfe effect on CMB. This Sean Carroll article nicely covers it. When you read the paper think of graviational redshift. In particular climbing in and out of gravity wells. ( All particles not just photons gain or lose energy climbing in and out of gravity wells. Normally they gain and lose the same amount as the average density before and after is the same. However if the average mass density changes while in transit. The effect is less loss climbing out to a lower density than when the particle first entered. http://preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/371/papers06/stricker-371paper.pdf I still find it somewhat amusing you argue against the term force. However the Gluon is a force mediator. Specifically the strong force. However not all mass is due to the strong force. For example 1% the mass of the Proton is due to the mass of the quarks. The rest is via the strong force (gluon binding energy). A typical mistake is thinking mass is one source in all cases. Try this for example the neutrino doesn't interact with the strong force. So it cannot gain mass from it. Hence the Higgs field. I guess thinking of just gluon interactions didn't make all our problems go away. Then you have electromagnetic mass. Also atomic mass. Get the picture. Mass is defined simply as "resistance to inertia". Any form of binding energy generates mass. Here is a suggestion Google each boson, look at the known interactions on wiki. Then Google the Neutrino and dark matter. Note not all particles interact with the electromagnetic, strong and weak force. Also note photons do not directly interact with gravity. Example electron interacts with weak, electromagnetic and gravity. Not the strong force. Neutrinos weak, gravity. Photons electromagnetic Gluons strong W an Z bosons weak. Electromagnetic strong weak gravity. Sterile neutrinos. Weak, gravity. Dark matter weak, gravity Note the similarities on neutrinos to dark matter. Neutrinos can pass through 1000 light years of lead without an interaction. So ask yourself this question, how does the electron, neutrino and W and Z bosons gain mass if they don't interact with gluons (strong force or gravity in two cases?) Understand why the Higgs field became so important? Here I located for you a very recent article on Chirality. Here is a key passage. "The Standard Model (SM) is a chiral theory, where right- and left-handed fermion fields transform differently under the gauge group. Extra fermions, if they do exist, need to be heavy otherwise they would have already been observed. With no complex mechanisms at work, such as confining interactions or extra-dimensions, this can only be achieved if every extra right-handed fermion comes paired with a left-handed one transforming in the same way under the Standard Model gauge group, otherwise the new states would only get a mass after electroweak symmetry breaking, which would necessarily be small (∼ 100 GeV). Such a simple requirement severely constrains the fermion content of Grand Unified Theories (GUTs). It is known for example that three copies of the representations 5 + 10 of SU(5) or three copies of the 16 of SO(10) can reproduce the Standard Models chirality, but how unique are these arrangements? In a systematic way, this paper looks at the possibility of having non-standard mixtures of fermion GUT representations yielding the correct Standard Model chirality. Family unification is possible with large special unitary groups for example, the 171 representation of SU(19) may decompose as 3 (16) + 120 + 3 (1) under SO(10)." key note if they exist.... http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.03695 As you can see its viable in the mathematics. Still requires evidence such as finding right hand fermions in the first place (Remind ya of supersymmetry??) That article is Apr 2015.

Ah that's what you meant by this. You needed to be a little clearer. The term dintegrate threw me off lol. My mistake I prefer to think of gluons interactions as mediates. My mistake on that