Mordred

No you had some good ideas it's simply the scalar field only contributes to the T_(00) component of the stress tensor which describes the energy density but doesn't give rise to curvature. So your questions were good ones. The curvature terms are described using the particles that have acquired mass (though massless particles can contribute) but not the Higgs field itself. That's an important distinction.

No that description doesn't work. When particles acquire the mass term they then contribute to the energy momentum tensor which in turn gives rise to curvature. A non interacting Higgs field doesn't contribute to the energy momentum terms for curvature. When particles acquire mass there is a mixing angle involved ( mathematical mixing angles ) not space/spacetime mixing angles. \(A_\mu\) an \(Z_\mu\) \[W^3_\mu=Z_\mu cos\theta_W+A_\mu sin\theta_W\] \[B_\mu= Z_\mu sin\theta_W+A_\mu cos\theta_W\] \[Z_\mu=W^3_\mu cos\theta_W+B_\mu sin\theta_W\] These are the mixing angles. After electroweak symmetry these mixings gives rise to the Mexican hat potential to the Higgs VeV (vacuum expectation value.) The left over degree of freedom due to no mixing angle for photons is what gives rise to the Higgs field VeV value today. However that left over doesn't contribute to curvature. ( in point of detail assuming Higgs as Cosmological constant is correct) then it's value would act as the cosmological constant term.

In this sense I like Sean Carolls descriptive he once gave in a lecture. If you want a Higgs boson you need to poke it. As Mentioned by Joigus the Higgs scalar field is a scalar field in order to get A Higgs boson out of it you need sufficient localized energy. The difference between scalar fields vs other fields such as vector, spinor and tensor fields is well described by Migl. One thing that Joigus correctly noted the Higgs field has 4 effective degrees of freedom making this scalar field a complex doublet.

First off strong piece of advise. Don't think of spacetime as some materialistic fabric. I mention this as its a very common misconception. Mass energy does tell spacetime how to curve. This is correct, but one detail to recognize is this describes geodesic paths through spacetime due to relativistic effects. Mathematically speaking we describe spacetime using geometry but one of the tenets of GR is invariance of geometric choice. There is also invariant properties to all observer example proper distance etc. However Observer affects also affect how we measure the variant properties ( time dilation, length attraction etc). Is there a limit to the mass energy term that causes curvature such as a BH. Well we simply don't know what the limit is assuming there is one. Example the true singularity condition of a BH at R=0. An example of a variant property is infinite redshift at the EH of a BH. Trying to describe this as "drawing in spacetime" doesn't make sense. Its more accurate to describe, the geodesics paths due to curvature. Past the EH all spacetime paths lead towards R=0 and never escape the EH. Yes there is equations to support this. Under GR one uses the Einstein field equations

Why are you now showing images for Calibi -Yau manifolds? Your not dealing with string theory ? Though even a string is larger than Planck units.

There is zero soap boxing in my post I posted actual physics relations. You are incorrect in your understanding of the graph showing the principle quantum numbers and how they correlate to the 720 degree rotation for spin 1/2 and spin 1 (360 degree rotation). To get the other rotations for other spin values you need to directly look at the spin statistics for each.

You keep mentioning dark matter but I haven't seen a single calculation that can possibly describe DM or it's density. In terms of spin particles with spin 1/2 require a 720 degree rotation to return to its original state. That is not true for spin zero or spin 1 particles. Spin however is not a spinning ball it is internal relations that have rotational symmetry. Example a sinusoidal wavefunction has rotation symmetry. As I mentioned before take time learning physics instead of randomly declaring your idea does this or that with zero basis of accuracy.

Too bad your not listening to the advise of two physicists. Your grids will only make sense if you incorporate phase space for each particle. The volumes you have are insufficient to be able to get any measurable quantities in regards to anything measurable on a particle. We cannot measure anything at Planck volume yet we can measure particle properties.

Let me describe a useful voxel that would work. Each voxel represents the phase space describing the state of a particle. Now you can apply all the standard model of particle physics formulas under that geometric treatment.

You may be using a couple of physics terms and values but your not applying anything one can describe as particles. Nor are you looking at mainstream equations. If you were you would know how mainstream physics applies pressure with regards to a particles equation of state.

I've read both books preferred both over 100 Roads to reality by Penrose (though some of Penrose commentary was rather amusing)

Have you ever considered simply studying physics instead of trying to invent your own. Nothing you have posted so far makes any sense.

The tesseract does nothing with regards to the claims you made above. We are all aware of the tesserect. There is literally nothing new about it.

That section you quoted stated your idea needs to make predictions in your examples requires mathematics in order to make predictions for testability. It's not a reason to avoid the mathematics. Nice try If you take a geometric object described by 3 dimensions turning it inside out will still only be 3 dimensional. (Dimension refers to effective degrees of freedom or under math an independent variable) A dimension has specific requirements to meet. That qualification is described and tested via mathematics and not random assertions.

You don't solve anything involving geometry unless your applying the mathematics. Without math everything is simply wildly imaginative assertions.

Your welcome

Mond has been around for several decades and has always been in contention with LCDM. MOND modifies f=ma in regions of low density such as voids originally to do away with DM in terms of galaxy rotation curves. For certain galaxy types it made better predictions than the NFW profile used by LCDM. In other cases it's the reverse. Where MOND failed is early galaxy formation and early LSS (large scale clusters). The link Geordief linked shows the early formation due to DM.

One thing to realize is the pop media hype is something that occurs with every new finding. Ignore the hype.... The paper is interesting but it certainly doesn't entail any new physics or challenge to LCDM. All it really does is show the possibility that DM halos extend further than originally thought. Which favored a MOND prediction over the NFW profile but in either case the theory involved in either case can account for the findings.

Agreed and yes terminology can be critical to understanding some of the more complex theories. Particularly with lousy pop media etc knowing the correct terminology helps avoid garbage garden paths. Superdeterminism would be a hard sell for me as under QFT all particles being field excitations it would literally be highly improbable to trace back further than one or two interactions leading to particle creation and annihilation. For example at a given blackbody temperature you have a number density of particles of a given species. You have no means of determining the precise number density but can only estimate depending on the particles effective degrees of freedom and cross section.

Lol so am I for that matter. For example the term correlation is a statistical mechanics terminology that describes a type of probability function. Hence it's application to entanglement. However this correlation function also includes the experimental setup. In essence the term doesn't particularly suit super determinism. One of the hassles with interpretations, is which terminology is best suitable for a particular interpretation.

Lol I tend to consider the real as being measurable quantities so in my point of view there's no need 😅

That's the impression I got as well.

Here is a paper discussing the Hartman effect which the article of the OP describes. In this paper it shows that the Hartman effect is in point of detail subliminal https://arxiv.org/abs/2208.09742 The gist of the paper is that the probability distribution function (wavefunction ) is larger with a leading tail that precedes the peak of the amplitude. The illusion occurs in examinations that focus strictly on the amplitude peak. Most of the answer given in this thread was in the right ballpark in recognizing the distinction due to the probability function. QFT for example the probability functions are Fourier transforms which provide a Delta function. That Delta function has both a leading edge and a following edge. The peak of the function is somewhere in the middle. This is the region of highest probability current. (This region also has number density terms describing the probable density of particles.) In QM with position and momentum operators the Schrodinger equation the above applies as well albeit single particle states the probability current is still used. As well as Fourier transforms.

Just an fyi there are treatments using Heaviside step functions for bounce cosmologies. https://skim.math.msstate.edu/reprints/ShinKim_Recursive_Heaviside_17.pdf this is one example though I have seen others its not something I would describe as a main stream approach but its been tried and has some merit. here is a treatment in regards to QCD once again just an FYI https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/9603119

Lets try this tact. One can get a research grant or other sources of funding. Say the grant is to validate the Earth is flat. (This actually happened to a flat Earth society). They performed a test. They went into the test with full bias. The Earth is flat and I'm going to prove it attitude. To their utter disappointment the test showed the Earth was round. I will give them credit though. They honestly announced their findings. When I wrote that dissertation I believed strongly in my theory. So I likely had a bias based on how strongly I believed in it. Yet like that flat Earth society. I accepted the findings as being valid enough to counter my previous belief in my theory.