Mordred

seesaw mechanism righthand neutrino states with Higgs coupling \[f^v \varepsilon_{ab}\overline{L}^aH^bV_r\] which gives rise to Dirac mass term \[M_D(\overline{V_L}V_R+\overline{V}_RV_L\] Majorona mass terms \[M_{m1}\overline{V_L}V^c_L+M_{2}M^{-c}_RV_R+c.c\] \[\begin{pmatrix}\overline{V_L}\\\overline{V^c_R}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}M_{m1}&M_D\\M_D&M_{M12}\end{pmatrix}(V^c_LV_R)\] eugenvalues \[\lambda^2=(M_{m1}+M_{M2})\lambda(M_{M1}M_{M2}-M_D^2)=0\] solution \[\lambda=\frac{(M_{M1}+M_{M2}\pm\sqrt{M_{(M1}-M_{M2}^2+4M_D^2}}{2}\] as one eugenvalue increases the other decreases. set \[M_{M1}=0,,,,M_{M2}>>M_D\] gives \[\lambda=M_{M2}(\frac{1\pm\sqrt{1+4}(\frac{M_D}{M_{M2}^2})}{2})\] \[\lambda_1\approx M_{M2},\lambda_2\approx \frac{M^2_D}{M_M^2}\]

I sincerely hope you never rely on AI. There is an expression garbage in equals garbage out. If you do not have a strong understanding of physics you won't be able to ask the AI the correct questions with the correct terminology. Without strong skills you won't be able to recognize when the AI makes mistakes. Or be able to correct the AI so it can improve the quality of the answer.

yes to blazars the difference between the two is the orientation As you described. Try thinking of it this way the infalling material is the shared material of the surroundings. you have two BH in a region does not increase the available material. That material must be already available in that region. Lets say you have a solar mass of available plasma of material in a 1 light year radius. In the center you have a single BH. In the other scenario you have 2 BH of the same mass. Which scenario would produce the most luminous accretion jet ?

lets take an example the geodesic equation used to describe the path of a particle. \[\frac{d^2x^\mu}{ds^2}+\Gamma^\mu_{\alpha\beta}\frac{dx^\alpha}{ds}\frac{ds^\beta}{ds}=0\] most texbooks and articles will simply describe this as I did the spacetime path of a particle. However someone who understands calculus and the mathematics will know it actually describes the extrenum of the function. In this case the minumum. {shortest path}. Another good example is entanglement. Anyone well versed in statistical mechanics will know that particle {Alice} entangled with particle {Bob} does not mean A affects Bob or vise versa there is no cause and effect. You can simply make probability predictions of Bob by what happens to Alice and vise versa through the Probability function called the correlation function. Yet poor quality papers verbally describe otherwise. The mathematics itself tells the real story. Anyone that truly desires to understand a physics theory requires understanding the math. Anyone no matter how knowledgeable that doesn't understand the math will always be a victim of verbal descriptions that often mis imply or is merely one of many interpretations

Try articles that show the related mathematics. Far too often confusion occurs more from verbal descriptions than it would in the related math. A good quality paper should be 75% math. I've seen far too much confusion by laymen reading simply the verbal descriptions and simply seeking key words they recognize rather than understanding the paper itself. They then mistakenly believe that paper supports their ideas when it doesn't even come close. Size for Particles for example isn't really applicable. Here try these for particle related physics http://arxiv.org/abs/0810.3328 http://arxiv.org/abs/0908.1395 Although this article deals specifically with BH accretion disks its earlier sections cover the major formulas with regards to rge BH.. http://arxiv.org/abs/1104.5499 Though if you want the essential tools to learn any physics theory. Differential geometry Kinematics Calculus Statistical mechanics.

Never try to learn physics via pop media style articles. They tend to never accurately describe any given scenario.

Found the paper I was looking for. Bunn and Hogg examines cosmological redshift in context of both gravitational redshift (would thus include time dilation) and Doppler shift. (Only involves time dilation in the relativistic scenario). He concludes that as free fall observers and emitters apply, then the latter case is more accurate than the previous. https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 One of the problems with the former and latter case is that you end up applying a large number of infinitesimal calculations between observer and emitter.

I do recall Bunn and Hoggs years ago wrote a paper examining cosmological redshift as a possible time dilation. He also wrote one specifically on gravitational redshift equating to time dilation. So it's been examined, I can see if I can track that paper down.

That has been looked into, if you run the time dilation calculations using cosmological redshift as gravitational redshift. You will hit infinity at the Hubble horizon as that is also the point where recessive velocity which is an apparent but not actual kinetic velocity will exceed c. It may help to consider that the other major evidence of expansion isn't simply redshift. The most important evidence is the temperature decrease due to an increasing volume. The other detail to consider is extreme efforts have been made from all the steady state supporters that didn't Like the idea of the BB. Nearly every possible effort to find counter arguments have been tried. They all failed. Time dilation aspects included. If your really looking into an aspect of expansion with a time dilation effect. Look into the integrated Sache Wolfe effect. It should give you some indication of some of the time dilation aspects many aren't fully aware of. It directly involves the stages where the universe switched from radiation dominant to matter to Lambda dominant and the surface of last scattering (CMB) Another detail is the typical cosmological redshift equation ie the one I posted earlier in the article isn't the one a professional cosmologist uses It doesn't take into consideration the evolution of radiation, matter and Lambda

Observational evidence tested further by the CMB itself. If you had curvature the CMB would appear fuzzy not clear. It was the COBE dataset itself that gave clear confirmation. Later confirmed to higher degrees of accuracy through WMAP and Planck. We can readily detect curvature by how we receive light. Curvature will involve lensing effects.

No all field variations will propagate at c as the maximum. To date their has been no exceptions to the speed of information exchange limit.

You don't have time dilation due to the homogeneous and isotropic mass distribution. At time of the emitter the universe mass distribution is uniform. At time of observer the same applies. During any point in time between the two the same applies. In essence you don't have time dilation when spacetime is flat at any point in travel time of the null geodesic worldline. Edit a simple analogy that might help. Take an elastic band stretch it just enough to be straight. There is your null geodesic of the photon path. Stretch it further the density decreases but it will still remain straight.

If you do the math you will likely find the images don't work as well as you believe they do. For example define the mathematics for consciousness hue whatever that's suppose to mean. The Feymann integrals has precise rules for their Dynkan diagrams with regards to virtual particles vs real particles those rules are exact and precise. In every vertex their is a mathematical equation supplying the details. Every representation shape has the same.

Sterile Neutrino related research papers Next decade of sterile neutrino studies by Alexey Boyarsky, Dmytro Iakubovskyi, Oleg Ruchayskiy https://arxiv.org/pdf/1306.4954.pdf Detection of An Unidentified Emission Line in the Stacked X-ray spectrum of Galaxy Clusters Esra Bulbul, Maxim Markevitch, Adam Foster, Randall K. Smith, Michael Loewenstein, Scott W. Randall https://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2301 Neutrino Masses, Mixing, and Oscillations Revised October 2021 by M.C. Gonzalez-Garcia (YITP, Stony Brook; ICREA, Barcelona; ICC, U. of Barcelona) and M. Yokoyama (UTokyo; Kavli IPMU (WPI), UTokyo). https://pdg.lbl.gov/2022/reviews/rpp2022-rev-neutrino-mixing.pdf

science isn't pictures and verbal descriptions. It is making testable predictions using mathematics of cause and effect. At least in any physics related topic. A picture or verbal description doesn't make a testable prediction. a very simple example I have a mass if I accelerate that mass to such and such it will deliver a measurable force. \[f=ma\] it is testable it makes predictions used in nearly every aspect of modern engineering as well as applying in every modern theory in physics.

Tricky as much of the details are in the mathematics however some textbooks are geared to those without a strong background in mathematics. Sean Carroll has a decent free article which does include the relevant math but he does an excellent job stepping one into it. https://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9712019 If you don't mind buying textbooks then I recommend Introductory to General relativity by Lewis Ryder. https://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-General-Relativity-Lewis-Ryder/dp/1108798373 some online video lectures are also helpful https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/8-962-general-relativity-spring-2020/video_galleries/video-lectures/

Mass/energy momentum is already accounted for under GR via the stress energy momentum tensor. So that in itself is already part of the existing model of GR.

As I have stated the modelling I'm doing isn't anything new. You evidentially aren't aware but much of the work of a professional Physicist also involves updating previous models and refining data tables and values for terms such as the mass of a proton etc. etc. It isn't just inventing new models. A great deal of the papers on arxiv involve just that. Updating research into existing models and methodologies.

Well gravity is described by spacetime under GR. Gravity only results by non uniform mass/energy distribution. Such as a planet as a common example. The planet has higher mass density than its surroundings. Spacetime is just a geometric description of volume with time as a dimension of length via the interval ct. spacetime itself isn't a fabric or substance but is simply the geometry. When you hear descriptions of curved spacetime. What they are actually describing is the geodesic particle paths that massive and massless particles follow. Take two parallel beams of light. If the beams stay parallel then you have flat spacetime (no gravity) if the beams no longer stay parallel and converge. (get closer) then you have positive curvature. If they move further apart then its negative curvature.

Ok sounds like your trying to describe gravity waves, which occur from any non uniform spinning object. Though you need significant mass to be able to even measure it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave

Academia is easy to publish in so is Amazon and Research gate. Getting a validated peer review, that's the major Hurdle. Having PH.D's recommend and apply your methodology. That's a major hurdle. Do that then you know for fact not feeling you have something worthwhile.

Anyone can get published, its one of the easiest things to do. Doesn't mean its worth anything

whatever you wish to believe. Makes no difference to me. I can guarantee no one will ever use your model. I've helped examine enough dissertations in cosmology based applications to know that.

Don't break your arm patting yourself on the back. Your the only one that feels he has an accurate and usable model.

Ok obviously I'm wasting my time trying to help you improve your model. You obviously believe its the greatest creation of mankind. Even though You haven't shown you can answer accurately any of my concerns with it. After all I do have degrees in Cosmology and particle physics but what do I know. You still haven't even shown me how you handle an extremely important aspect in physics which are vectors. I'm done wasting my time . I have read the same copy past posts of yours dozens of times. They did not then not do not now address a single concern I had with your model. Why you keep believing reposting the same stuff over and over again supplies the answers I have no idea. You should have been able to directly prove your model can conform to Newtons laws of inertia by simply supplying the required derivatives and transformations from your 11 dimensional spacetime to a simple Euclidean frame. After all you so have tensors in your model. Vectors and spinors are fundamental to those tensors.