Mordred

That's one of several known issues with the Alcubierre drive another being that such a warp bubble generates Gamma rays that even using subliminal velocity could eradicate life on the planet of origin and the planet of arrival. Again not very practical. Lol who one day someone might write a sci-fi novel with Alcubierre missiles.

Good answer Markus I can't think of anything to add +1

You might be thankful this site allows Speculations while under the Moderator guidelines. Other sites don't allow any non mainstream topic or any Speculations while several do but no Moderation so you get every random wild guess possible. Quite frankly the guidelines are easy to adhere to and doing so helps prevent circular arguments.

Indeed no reputable article or model describes our universe as anistropic or inhomogeneous. The evidence is far too strong on a homogeneous and isotropic expansion.

I feel much the same way the problem I have isn't getting sterile neutrinos the correct behavior characteristics for cold (non relativistic matter) that math I posted above but the sheer quantity that would be needed. Even if you have 3 flavors of sterile neutrinos I haven't been able to calculate sufficient quantity nor seen any decent calculations showing how to get sufficient number of sterile neutrinos.

Whatever reason would you believe we don't understand fluid mechanics ? Which has next to nothing to do with super symmetry.

First step is to understand that the BB model does not tell us how the universe was created. The model only describes the earliest condition our math can describe before you get the mathematical singularity conditions at 10^-43 seconds. A universe from nothing is only one of the numerous possibilities . Other possibilities is our universe bounced from a previous universe and Cyclic universes are two other possibilities.

We do not know where the energy/mass originated in the BB model. We can only extrapolate back to \(10^{-43}\) s of the BB. The estinated particle count being \(10^{90}\) particles. Particles can be created or destroyed the energy to do so is contained in the relevant fields involved. Keep in mind mass is resistance to inertia change. Energy is the ability to perform work Field is any collection of objects/values. So mass and energy are related via \[E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2\] So they are simply properties of a system or state. Neither exists on its own. The work is done by the fields involved however that does not imply the field is more fundamental than particles. Simply that the work is performed to generate particles via fields.

Can you provide a peer review ?

Oops I missed that thanks for catching that Migl.

Swansont answered the top part. I wouldn't think of it as strictly mass causes spacetime curvature (gravity). It's more accurate to use the stress energy momentum tensor. Massless particles can cause curvature as well hence the above statement.

Lol should be clear that post was more for @Joigus. In terms of DM possible solutions it does have viability.

Well assuming DM is sterile neutrinos then due to the Right hand singlet state and applying Majoronna mass with the Higgs metastability then the sterile neutrinos are more massive than matter neutrinos. So this would be the only viable option for cold neutrinos though we have yet to detect an antineutrino (right hand/sterile). Though I know the OP won't understand the mathematics (few will ) the related math is here (Just an FYI It takes considerable familiarity with particle physics to understand below) \[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\] \[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\] 4 effective degrees of freedom doublet complex scalar field. with \[D_\mu\Phi=(\partial_\mu+igW_\mu-\frac{i}{2}\acute{g}B_\mu)\Phi\]\ \[V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)=-\mu^2\Phi^\dagger\Phi+\frac{1}{2}\lambda(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)^2,\mu^2>0\] in Unitary gauge \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{\lambda}{4}v^4\] \[+\frac{1}{2}\partial_\mu H \partial^\mu H-\lambda v^2H^2+\frac{\lambda}{\sqrt{2}}vH^3+\frac{\lambda}{8}H^4\] \[+\frac{1}{4}(v+(\frac{1}{2}H)^2(W_mu^1W_\mu^2W_\mu^3B_\mu)\begin{pmatrix}g^2&0&0&0\\0&g^2&0&0\\0&0&g^2&g\acute{g}\\0&0&\acute{g}g&\acute{g}^2 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}W^{1\mu}\\W^{2\mu}\\W^{3\mu}\\B^\mu\end{pmatrix}\] Right hand neutrino singlet needs charge conjugate for Majorana mass term (singlet requirement) \[\Psi^c=C\overline{\Psi}^T\] charge conjugate spinor \[C=i\gamma^2\gamma^0\] Chirality \[P_L\Psi_R^C=\Psi_R\] mass term requires \[\overline\Psi^C\Psi\] grants gauge invariance for singlets only. \[\mathcal{L}_{v.mass}=hv_{ij}\overline{I}_{Li}V_{Rj}\Phi+\frac{1}{2}M_{ij}\overline{V_{ri}}V_{rj}+h.c\] Higgs expectation value turns the Higgs coupling matrix into the Dirac mass matrix. Majorana mass matrix eugenvalues can be much higher than the Dirac mass. diagonal of \[\Psi^L,\Psi_R\] leads to three light modes v_i with mass matrix \[m_v=-MD^{-1}M_D^T\] MajorN mass in typical GUT \[M\propto10^{15},,GeV\] further details on Majorana mass matrix https://arxiv.org/pdf/1307.0988.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/9702253.pdf

No that would violate numerous conservation laws of particle physics. For example conservation of isospin, charge, lepton number, energy/mass momentum, color, flavor. There are others but the incoming particles and outgoing particles must obey those laws.

Possibly but we will see the main thing is to throw away the billiard ball or bullet image of a particle.

Some decay rates example Higgs boson at 10^(-22) seconds you don't really have time for a second look...though it's never instant resonant particles decay extremely fast to the point of second look isn't fast enough. Lol

It helps to understand that particles are not little bullets with corpuscular (matter like) constituents. It's best to think of them as field excitations. This is the QFT view but when you get into the Feymann path integrals you quickly learn this is a very accurate description. Though keep in mind those integrals also incorporate probability functions as well as the particle state.

Dark matter no plausible on DE and zero point energy though the zero point energy led to the vacuum catastrophe where it's calculated energy was 120 orders of magnitude too high. It's still not discounted however as it's still a viable possibility

It also helps to read over the guidelines in the Speculation forum in the locked threads at the top. Simply posting assertions without any actual science doesn't help

Aren't you forgetting the needed equations for magnetic confinement ? The cross section calculations for different elements used in the fusion process ? What temperature do you need to reach to fuse deuterium as opposed to helium 3 for example . Claiming something but unable to supply any related calculations isn't very practical in my opinion. A star has gravity working in its favor as well as a huge volume of plasma to act as a temperature trap we don't have that on Earth so must use other means. With fusion power there is something called the Lawson criteria are you familiar with it ? Its directly related to the power output compared to the power demands and will differ in different reactions. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawson_criterion If you had shown those calculation you bet I would have been more inclined to listen. However random claims amount to zilch zero nothing.

Somehow I don't see the connection with what you just posted to showing a practical design for a fusion reactor.

I lost track of how often I hear such claims. Yet when asked direct questions or mathematical models the poster seldom can answer with anything resembling actual science. It's too bad most ppl don't recognize that the very job of a physicist is to do calculations in order to validate any physics based theory. That isn't equivalent to writers block. If one cannot mathematically describe a physics theory then it's useless simple as that. Try calculating the amount of energy required at a specific focal point to cause fusion under the atmospheric conditions on the Earth's surface. Do that and maybe you might convince someone.

The different drag components isn't strictly mechanical either. You will likely see a drag/drift effect associated with similarities to a magnetic cyclotron. In so far as the related mathematics most are already mentioned. Though we didn't go quite that far via Maxwell. The two primary formulas to describe the above will be Lorentz force law and the Magnetic force law. (When you start varying the E and B field you get some interesting side effects)

Is time something that exists on its own ? Of course not. That isn't described by physics to start with. Time is a property describing rate of change nothing more. One certainly doesn't require any papers to describe the above. Just a clear understanding of physics to start with.

As others have mentioned and our forum rules describe. I have no interest in downloading papers from another site. I hope your papers include the relevant mathematics rather than just pictures and words but I'm not placing much hope in that. Let's start with mistake number one. (ct) used in the Interval as per GR is not the same as time itself (which is a property describing rate of change) it does not describe distance. The Interval is used to give dimensionality of length. If you based your papers on the above statement we can stop now as it's already falsified under incorrect premise. That should have been obvious if you simply asked " What is the length of a second ?" Obviously a second does not include any length term