Mordred

Agreed I should have included the hours

Correct you always need to filter out unwanted noise pollution generated by other sources such as stars and plasma

Terawatt hour yearly for LHC from what I gathered is 1.3 terawatt hours yearly. Operating 200 MW https://home.cern/science/engineering/powering-cern How accurate that link is ?

Here is detail on the H11 region https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strömgren_sphere though the OP paper is examining H1 region. The link only mentions around a star but it also applies to galaxies in terms of its ionization regions example being the OP paper figure 2

The mass would be larger and the volume would also increase the photoionization process used by the paper is as follows \[H_I+\gamma\rightarrow p+e\] the cross section for the photoionization rate \[\Gamma_\gamma H=\int_{\nu_t}^\infty c\sigma_\pi (\nu)N_\gamma(\nu)d\nu\] where \(\nu_t\) is the threshold frequency of 13.6 ev. \(N_y(\nu)d\nu\) is the number density of photons with range \(\nu\rightarrow \nu+d\nu\) this is related to the energy flux \(J(\nu)\) by \[N_\gamma(\nu)=\frac{4\pi J(\nu)}{ch\nu}\] in essence the bound free transition probability thoug one can also apply the Milne relation (more specifically for recombination =ionization) https://casper.astro.berkeley.edu/astrobaki/index.php/Milne_Relation that is the essential process they are measuring to get the luminosity factors under spectrography edit forgot to add the reason why the paper posted by the OP highlights the uncertainty in the electron density directly relates to the the above relation. So research tightening the error margin will also be helpful in regards to the Hubble contention. Its further data to help with local group calibrations in regards to distance measures. Specifically the interference to standard candle Lumosity distance relations (simplified descriptive light pollution generated by galactic mediums such as plasma ) The above relations can be found in RADIATIVE PROCESSES IN ASTROPHYSICS GEORGE B. RYBICKI ALAN P. LIGHTMAN chapter 10. in terms of H1 vs H11 these describe plasma ionization regions with H1 being partially ionized whilst the H11 region is almost entirely ionized further details related being the Lyman break https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyman-break_galaxy

I seem to recall mentioning MRI indirect evidence of measuring synaptic responses to stimuli. That's one method with which has a large body of studies available on the web. That would be an objective observation This link will assist I haven't gone through it entirely nor its linked papers https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/systems-neuroscience/articles/10.3389/fnsys.2016.00084/full

Well for starters there is a mass/luminosity relation this typically involves processes such as Compton scatterings etc. When I get a chance I will provide further detail on that. It's doubtful it will affect the Hubble contention as a large part of the contention is due to local calibration issues which involves supernova and different types of cepheids rather than the galaxy itself. We don't use luminosity of the galaxy for luminosity to distance relations as there is too many unknowns involved for determining the emitter luminosity frequencies.

As physical processes involve kinematic motion hence the SM model langrangian which applies path integrals via principle of Least action. You would have an incredibly difficult time equating anything relating of mind to those physical processes under physics. Yes I would consider that off topic

When it leads to measurable physical effects then yes example being DM. We have high confidence that DM exists but the only evidence is indirect. Often times indirect physical evidence later leads to discovery. For example measurable physical particle processes that we cannot account for often lead to discovery of a new particle or particle interaction as further research becomes available. DM if you think about it fits in this category.

Without calculations it's all hand waving start with calculating the energy requirements for 3 particle accelerators plus your energy requirements for containment which would likely require magnetic confinement. I provided a clue in the related formulas for self ignition. https://warwick.ac.uk/fac/sci/physics/research/cfsa/people/pastmembers/peeters/teaching/lecture2.pdf There are reasons why fusion on Earth requires a far higher temperature than the core of our sun. In order for a particle accelerator to function requires a tremendous amount of electricity it does after all apply the EM field via Maxwell equations in particular Lorentz force. If I recall the yearly budget of the LHC is something on the order of Terra watts of electricity yearly but It's been awhile since I read that so my memory may be fuzzy on that number. It also isn't simply a matter of temperature but also pressure. The suns gravity aids in that. However on Earth we must supply that energy through magnetic confinement. However using accelerators and magnetic confinement isn't a bad idea (ignoring tachyons and DM). The Lawson criteria is one the preliminary steps and can be further applied with different particles such as muons. There is calculation for muons in regards the accelerators available on the web. (Specifically applying the Lawson criteria).The only way to test for practicality is to crunch numbers not simply hand wave ideas. That will help narrow out the more useful particle to use. In terms of potential net gain. Here is a more detailed article. You will note hopefully the Coulomb collisions with regards to the particles cross section plays a fundamental roll in determining which particle is more suitable for ignition temperature. https://juser.fz-juelich.de/record/283626/files/VanOost_Jaspers_IN-2.pdf Edit assuming DM is a weakly interactive particle and we know doesn't interact with the EM field you wouldn't be able to use magnetic confinement or an accelarator to speed up a DM particle.

Also sounds like a work of fiction. Let's start with the energy requirements of all the equipment you proposed. How would you possibly meet the Lawson criteria for self sustaining ignition to get any net gain of energy ? Even assuming dark matter is some as of yet unknown particle or the mere existence of tachyons. Which the latter has zero evidence for its existence. PS welcome to the forum.

Sorry misread that earlier thanks for the catch +1

Quality can be measured via Grey tones as well as percentage of absorption, reflection/Refraction. Good example being the blackest black record holder paint.

Simple way to think of it is any measurable quantity is a physical quantity. Example color is measurable so it's a physical property. Here is a short list of physical properties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_property

One detail to consider it's physicality is oft considered as being measurable. Particularly under QFT treatments and serves as a distinction between operator action and propogator action in terms of Feymann integrals. Ie internal wavy lines represent what is commonly called virtual particles which individually are not measurable. Might help with defining physicality.

Typically and assuming the old boundary condition still holds but the boundary used to be considered as 100 times the mean average density of the void regions which can be calculated via the critical density formula as our universe is extremely close to critical density. No this paper will not replace the need for DM though may reduce the local to galaxy quantity needed to match rotation curves.

! Moderator Note Op requested move via PM

Are you talking about Apopropanolol I'd so this should be moved to one of the medical forums and not the astronomy forum. Once you confirm I can move the thread for you

The point I'm making is that in order to get the best accuracy one cannot necessarily stick with any favorite or preferred theory. So its best to be able to use whichever theory outside of any preference that works best with a given system. Nor is it realistic to use the same equation to describe all possible interactions that can occur. A good example is the standard model Langrangian which is a little over a page Long. Your far better off using the portions applicable and reduce the equation to simply the relevant portions of the system being described.

Well as stated it's not a conjecture I've chosen to follow closely so wouldn't really know if Boltzmann brains exist or not. Given the probability errors on that link. I hadn't read anything stating such conclusively. Truth be told I never found any practicality behind studying the conjecture. So never wasted much time on it. Usually when I do it's to assist some poster understand the physics involved as numerous papers have the FLRW metric as well as SM processes such as EW symmetry breaking and inflation.

I think one of the trickier examples of statistics given enough time is the Boltzmann Brain conjecture where given enough time the Universe itself could develop a brain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain It's not a conjecture I particularly follow but it's one example of how statistical systems given enough time can be applied to some highly speculative outcomes.

Well here is another challenge to add to the proverbial headache. Let's say your comparing two or more methodologies to describe a class or category of systems. Ie galaxies /plasma clouds/ hydrodynamic systems etc. Lets say theory B makes better predictions to certain subcategories (example one class of galaxy) than theory A but theory A makes better predictions than theory B in other subclasses. How does one objectively determine which is better theory A or theory B for an all inclusive theory ? For higher accuracy the theory best suited for the specific system should be the one used. This is one of the fundamental challenges in science it's the choosing of the best fit for a specific system. Far too often one wants to use one theory on all subsystems in a given study however if one wants higher accuracy this isn't always possible. So in this case higher accuracy is achievable by using multiple competing theories in the same study.

Let's try a simpler example then you have some system. When you describe the velocity terms (first order ) you have some error margin but it's acceptable. (It's never 100 percent) now on that same system you want to add accelerations which involve force terms (second order) your accuracy will naturally decrease. As you increase to third order (stress/shear) the problem progressively gets more and more inaccurate. All the above it's literally unavoidable its a natural consequence all you can do is minimize the error margins. This is also one of the dangers with having too many degrees of freedom in the same integrals. So accuracy is best achieved by avoiding trying to do too much in the same equation.

Here is a useful example in regards to the scientific method. Using math (I won't bother with the specific formulas) when estimating DM distribution based on the viral theorem for gaussian distribution. The first order equations are used. The second order equations led to higher inaccuracy so the second order equations are not being used. This was checked by observational evidence. So even with the same methodology higher order equations can often lead to higher error margins (which is very typical )

None of the above is useful for GR besides the geometry itself. When applying the Lorentz transformations the x coordinate is by convention chosen for the particle momentum. Any orientations are handled via symmetry relations involving rotational and spatial translations. So one can arbitrarily apply GR to any orientation of any object relative to any other orientation. You also mentioned absolute space above. Forget that there is no absolute reference frame or space. How objects behave in the the presence of spacetime curvature has nothing to do with the composition of the mass terms so relating that to magma makes little sense. The composition merely contributes to establishing the mass distribution which in turn leads to the spacetime curvature terms. For oblate spheroids a choice of orientation won't matter as the mass terms is asymmetric and the mass distribution will also be non uniform. This is already handled under the EFE.