Mordred

Here is the related math The first part will show the FLRW metric and the Newton approximation under GR FLRW Metric equations \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] \[H^2=(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho+\frac{\Lambda}{3}-\frac{k}{a^2}\] setting \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] gives the energy stress momentum tensor as \[T^{\mu\nu}=pg^{\mu\nu}+(p=\rho)U^\mu U^\nu)\] \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu\sim\frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)+p(\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=0\] which describes the conservation of energy of a perfect fluid in commoving coordinates describes by the scale factor a with curvature term K=0. the related GR solution the the above will be the Newton approximation. \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\] As the last post I did glitched, rather than redoing all the latex you can see the most common derivative of redshift here. I don't feel like spending another half hour latexing the formulas here to have it glitch on an edit. http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr328/Notes/Redshift/redshift.html this is the most commonly used derivatives anyways. You will note no time dilation is involved.

I am and do still use it. Along with C++, and Pascal. Particularly when programming hardware drivers.

Might help to understand that spacetime is a geometric model describing a volume with variations in time. It is those time variations that require time as a dimension. Now with a homogeneous and isotropic (roughly) uniform mass distribution you don't really require this for a flat universe. However you do if the universe is positive or negative curved hence its included. It isn't accurate precisely to think of spacetime itself expanding. It is more accurate to think of the mean average density of mass distribution is decreasing and that distribution is over a greater volume. Does that help ? Edit added aid expansion is literally described via the thermodynamic laws. All calculations involving the expansion history applies those laws via the fluid equations of the FLRW metric.

I can post the equations after work but the FLRW metric derives from the Newton approximation dust solution in commoving coordinates.

As mentioned GR is used, the FLRW metric is simply an accurate simplified derivative of GR.

Higgs again. \[m\overline{\Psi}\Psi=(m\overline{\Psi_l}\Psi_r+\overline{\Psi_r}\Psi)\] \[\mathcal{L}=(D_\mu\Phi^\dagger)(D_\mu\Phi)-V(\Phi^\dagger\Phi)\] 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 I don't want your model. I know how Supersymmetry works under SO(MSSM) and SO(32) twister theorem as well as under Pati Salem. You still haven't shown your model works at the rudimentary core of the model. How you define gravity itself. The above applies a scalar field works great for spin zero particles doesn't work well for vector fields ie spin 1/2 spin 1 or spin 2 particles. But then we're still back at how are you handling vectors and spinors . The inherent problem of a scalar field should be obvious. Magnitude only no directional components ie vector being magnitude and direction Example \[\mu\cdot\nu=\nu\cdot\mu\] describes the symmetry of two vectors under the Minkowskii metric Covariance and contravariance you need covectors or in older terminology one forms hopefully you know the dot refers to the inner product of two vectors cross product is needed for spinors

Have you truly done everything you need if so then supply the killing vectors describing your manifolds under your 11 dimensional g_{ij} to prove invariant. Google Cartan killing vectors to get a handle on it. Its amazing you continually resort to copy and paste of the same repeated information yet cannot directly perform the calculation I asked here .

Well your job is to defend and prove your model. My job in essence is to challenge it. If it helps think of it in those terms. If you cannot prove or properly defend your model then it still needs work

Yes but your statements don't comply with it. Gravity is a property of spacetime. Not a fundamental. Your model has it as some fundamental. The onus is up to you to prove it

Uh huh \[f=\frac{GM_1M_2}{r^2}\] used for planetary bodies aka precursor to Keplers laws. Do you not believe this is applicable go ahead take a uniform distribution apply the above formula in a uniform mass distribution where the sum of forces at any chosen point on a field will equal zero which is what Newtons Shell theorem shows. Your the one that has the non standard definition of gravity prove under the above circumstance gravity will exist and lead to particle production. Every modern theory is reducible to Newtons laws its part of their mathematical proofs. Including GR aka Newton approxination

I stated you did not the standard model shall I cut and paste the relevent section here from I believe page 2 ? try those statements under Newtons shell theorem with g=0.... go ahead give the mathematical proof not blooming claims and verbatim words but the mathematics showing you have gravity in a field mass distribution 100% uniform. Under GR gravity results from the curvature term. Not a homogeneous and isotropic distribution where k=0. Your model indicated gravity as a prime always existing. As some form of matter GEM if I recall. Which in itself is problematic as matter is the fermionic group of SM particles and do not include bosons. Pauli exclusion principle. ask yourself the following how do you have gravity prior to having a mass term to curve spacetime ? Your model states that gravity creates the SM particles if I recall. So where is your initial mass term? if all particles are in thermal equilibrium and indistinguishable from photons ie 10^-43 seconds. Prior to electroweak symmetry breaking. one of my questions you never did answer after you posted the scalar field equations you have is how are you handling vectors and spinors you never did give me an answer. Newtons gravity is not strictly Earth based yeesh, Boy would all the astrophysicists love you for that statement they rarely need GR to handle planetary orbits... You might consider looking under Newton approximation solutions under GR. I had posted the relevant equations on this thread way back at the beginning.

under more modern thought via QFT particles don't exist. Modern enough for you ? good luck with that as you have described too many claims arising from fantasy land in your descriptives. By that I mean untestable and easily falsifiable. One claim for example involved how you described gravity counter to experimental evidence with regards to Newtons shell theorem which in turn falsified your claim of General Correspondance. which literally means any theory must be reducible to known Newtonian physics. Another claim I didn't bother wasting time challenging is you continual references to some Aether. One can readily contest that in regards to M&M type experiments which have advanced to a far greater precision than you will find in any textbook. myself included in that list The best advice I could give you is to literally sit down and study those old school models and theories you find too boring to bother with. If you did in all honesty you would quickly learn to realize just how falsifiable you theory sounds as you presented here

To better understand the Weinberg mixing angles with regards to the CKMS matrix and to further examine the aspects of the seesaw mechanism of the Higgs field. Assuming supersymmetry though you would have supersymmetric Higgs partners as well. Supersymmetry though hasn't been disproven yet and is still viable. However our colliders are still too low an energy level to produce a supersymmetric particle. Were on the minimal border line however. From what I see the supersymmetric partners do not work in the current CKMS matrix so you would need a different matrix to account for them. That is what I'm confirming. I was correct you need a super-CKMS matrix for supersymmetry. Details here https://arxiv.org/pdf/0810.1613.pdfc Bose Einstein QFT format. \[|\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_1})\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_2})|0\rangle\] \[\Rightarrow |\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle= |\vec{k_2}\vec{k_1}\rangle\] number operator \[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}\vec{k})\] Hamilton operator \[\hat{H}=\int d^3k\omega_k[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\] momentum of field \[\hat{P}=\int d^3k\vec{k}[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\] renormlized Hamilton \[\hat{H_r}=\int d^3 k\omega_k\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}(\vec{k})\]

Leptogenesis and baryogenesis would occur at the initial electroweak symmetry breaking stages prior to the dark ages where the mean free path of photons due to overall density is less than 10^-30 metres. The CMB data would unlikely be able to preserve any evidence as the expansion and slow roll stages of inflation would cause supercooling followed btmy reheating. However I'm not trying to solve either leptogenesis and baryogenesis. I already know the cross scatterings show that the right neutrino mixing angles would be insufficient in quantity via the Higgs seesaw to account for either That possibility is already well researched. However there is current research studying neutrino oscillations itself that may or may not provide insight to the above.

Uh huh and yet every particle of the standard model today was predicted using the methodologies you describe as old fashioned.There is a reason those models stick around to this day. They work extremely well in making testable predictions. Anyways that's really your hangup and opinion not mine. I stick to what I know has been successful and is still capable of being sucessful. Using proven successful methodologies. Thus far this thread has been far more claim than proving your mathematics work. So your not presenting anything convincing. Words and claims are essentially meaningless.

True however one must also factor in the luminosity relations. If you spread the infalling material over a wider area with the outgoing material also spread over a larger area. The material won't be as energized and subsequently a lower temperature. So the mean average frequency is lower. So both the luminosity and apparent magnitude would be reduced as opposed to a single confined outgoing accretion jet.

All good, it took me several months studying various literature directly relating to CKMS for me to finally fill in the blanks and be comfortable working with it. It has been one of my goals in this thread. (Still is but now that I figured out how the cross sections connect to to the CKMS for both left and right hand particles. I can now look at the supersymmetric partners.

Higgsstralung with k in c.m momentum of Higgs boson \[\sigma(g_i\overline{q}_j)\rightarrow=\frac{\pi \alpha^2 |V_{ij}|^2}{36sin^4\theta_W}\frac{2k}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{k^2+3m^2_W}{(s-m^2_W)^2}\] \[\sigma(f\acute{f}\rightarrow ZH)=\frac{2\pi\alpha^2|v_{ij}|^2(\ell^2_f+r^2_f)}{48n_csin^4\theta_Wcos_W^2}\frac{2k}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{k^2+3m_Z^2}{(s-m^2_Z)^2}\] note last equation shows all quarks contribute to ZZ fusion process. V denotes the CKM matrix usage [latex]\begin{pmatrix}\acute{d}\\\acute{s}\\\acute{b}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}V_{ud}&V_{us}&V_{ub}\\V_{cd}&V_{cs}&V_{cb}\\V_{td}&V_{ts}&V_{tb}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}d\\s\\b\end{pmatrix}[/latex] [latex]V_{ckm}=V^\dagger_{\mu L} V_{dL}[/latex] the CKM mixing angles correlates the cross section between the mass eigenstates and the weak interaction eigenstates. Involves CP violations and chirality relations. Kk cool the first 2 equations show how the cross section correlates to the CKMS with the Higgs already factored in on the partial widths. The partial widths correlate to the detector channels. @GenadyI'm going to need the MSSM chiral operators. Simply as I have the supersymmetric cross sections and would like to examine them further.

Lol the aliens with tentacles might object in favor of the binary system.

Better to ask the aliens assuming they even use the decimal system lol. In all seriousness the more you describe your theory Baron the wilder and more unlikely it becomes.

SO(3,1) universal cover SL(2C) spin1/2 Lie group Pauli matrices \[SL(2\mathbb{C})={M\in Mat(2\mathbb{C});det(M)=1}\] \[(X= 2*2) Hermitian-matrices \begin{pmatrix}x^2+x^3&x^1-ix^2\\x^1+ix^2&x^0-x^3\end{pmatrix}\] \[\sigma_0=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&1\end{pmatrix}\] \[\sigma_1=\begin{pmatrix}0&1\\1&0\end{pmatrix}\] \[\sigma_2=\begin{pmatrix}0&i\\-i&0\end{pmatrix}\] \[\sigma_3=\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\0&-1\end{pmatrix}\] \[det(x)=x_0^2-x_1^2-x_2^2-x_3^2\] \[\Psi=\begin{pmatrix}\Psi+\\\Psi-\end{pmatrix}\in\mathbb{C}^2\] \[(M,\Psi)\rightarrow M\cdot\Psi\] where Dirac spinors consist of 2 Weyl spinors

Higgs cross sections partial width's \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow f\bar{f})=\frac{G_Fm_f^2m_HN_c}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}(1-4m^2_f/m^2_H)^{3/2}\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow W^+ W^-)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_W}{32\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_w+3a_W^2)\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow ZZ)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_z}{64\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_Z+3a_Z^2)\] \[N_c=3\] for quarks 1 for leptons \[a_w=1-\beta^2_W=\frac{4m^2_w}{m^2_H}\] \[a_Z=1-\beta^2_Z=\frac{4m^2_Z}{m^2_H}\] explicitely \[\Gamma(H\longrightarrow gg)=\frac{\alpha_s^2G_FM^3_H}{36\pi^3\sqrt{2}}|\sum_q I(\frac{m^2_q}{m^2_H}|^2\] Higgsstralung with k in c.m momentum of Higgs boson \[\sigma(g_i\overline{q}_j)\rightarrow=\frac{\pi \alpha^2 |V_{ij}|^2}{36sin^4\theta_W}\frac{2k}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{k^2+3m^2_W}{(s-m^2_W)^2}\] \[\sigma(f\acute{f}\rightarrow ZH)=\frac{2\pi\alpha^2|v_{ij}|^2(\ell^2_f+r^2_f)}{48n_csin^4\theta_Wcos_W^2}\frac{2k}{\sqrt{s}}\frac{k^2+3m_Z^2}{(s-m^2_Z)^2}\] note last equation shows all quarks contribute to ZZ fusion process

You know you keep stating Physics in stuck in the 60"s and yet I could show you a universe model that applies known physics where the universe can arise from in essence positive matter energy. and negative gravity energy. That was designed back in the 60's. The model employs mathematics developed initially in 1920's Relativity and the FLRW metric 1939. Work still continues to this very day with papers still being written about it. The point you do not seem to grasp is that science never ever closed the book on a given viable theory. Every viable theory will always develop and improve each and every year. They do so with known physics they do not need to reinvent physics. As new research leads to new discoveries those discoveries get included into the applicable theories. You evidently do not seem to be aware of this detail and as such scorn the scientific process as a result. You claim you do not have the funds to get interest from the scientific community. Yet one doesn't require any funds to get a professional Peer reviewed paper published on arxiv or even require a degree. Provided you can convince a PH.D to sponsor your work anyone can get a peer review. This however doesn't mean the paper is correct. It simply means that the paper conforms with its standards and is on the topic being described. I could post papers describing numerous pre-universe models that have 11 dimensions. The Strong pre-universe, the gravitational pre-universe, the Charged pre-universe, the four stage universe. The universe from nothing, the zero energy- universe, the universe from a BH (countless numbers of those) same for the universe from white holes. The time reversal\time forward multiverse pair. The list is literally endless. All of them however have one thing in common. They are all viable in the mathematics they show with known physics. They all deploy a collection of formulas from a collection of any related theories and models. Thermodynamics, the FLRW metric, relativity, QM/QFT some with string theories some without. Some are schotastic other conformal or canonical. However none of them ever saw the need to reinvent any known and well tested physics. so no matter what you claim you never convince me physics is stuck in the 60's. Your wasting your breath on that score. I've watched too many theories develop from one form to later improvements in nearly every theory I have ever studied. That is the very essence of the scientific process and if you believe the idea of the SM particles arising from gravity is something new well that is essence of string theory. Its entire fundamental process applies the graviton as the fundamental string. This was the initial development long before M theory. lol the FLRW metric today isn't even in its original form... Lets take an example exercise. at 10^-43 seconds. The observable universe if you reverse expansion is less than an atom in volume. Actually much smaller than that. Yet we know its an extremely hot, dense state of low entropy. Now myself I would describe this state by the only meaningful mathematics. How would curvature even apply in such a miniscule volume. Why would gravity even be a factor with such a limited volume ? So really the only applicable geometry is simply \[ds^2=g_{ij}dq^idq^j\] which is simply denoting the Kronecker Delta under Cartesian coordinates. At that volume you wouldn't have any time dilation. Everything else is in thermal equilibrium (thermodynamics). So the only other meaningful detail is literally the temperature. Temperature is part of the EM field so one can employ gauge photons as the mediator. Now I can bet dollars to donuts your going to claim differently as from what you described that is not your model. Yet that is how the majority of the physics experts in cosmology will describe the state at that time. One could also use a generalized spacetime (coordinate independant form) ie Euclid, Polar, spherical, Cylindrical. \[ds^2=g_{\alpha\beta}dx^\alpha dx^\beta\] but that is an arbitrary choice with the given volume just a side note on unusual mathematical treatments in older models (still under development to this very day) is to describe particles in binary lattice space. \[|\Psi\rangle=\sum^n_{i=1}|\phi_i\rangle\] where the dimensions can b any arbitrary number from 4 to 11. (part of the zero energy universe model, or one of the numerous variations of the same theme). This equation then works with the nilpotent Dirac equation where the sum of energy, momentum, time and space=0. The model also has specific formulas for particles arising from those factors. for example the fermion mass formula given by that model is \[M_{d,a}=\sum_{M_f}\frac{3M_{b_{d-1,0}}}{2}\sum^a_{a=0}a^4\] this is work once presented by Bohr_Sommerfeld. In essence it is a universe from nothing model where particles arise from spacetime where spacetime equates the potential and kinetic energy terms via the nilpotent Dirac equation and the sum of the potential energy and kinetic energy terms is balanced at zero. Hope that gives you an idea of just a few of the NOT FOUND in textbooks professionally peer reviewed models your competing against. here is the reference for further detail. It is merely 1 out of literal hundreds of professional peer reviewed universe creation models I have come across https://arxiv.org/ftp/hep-th/papers/0201/0201115.pdf I have greater faith in this model that what I have seen of yours simply because there are no grandiose claims that are made. Not that I accept this paper as one I would fully trust this particular paper either. It is simply 1 variation of the theme. I've seen far better variations of zero energy universe treatments.

Likely the easiest way to answer the above is to recognize that in QFT. You don't think of particles as little billiard balls. In QFT all particles are field excitations. An excitation is a waveform however it is not a sinusoidal waveform as you have in your pictures. It would look more like a momentary spike. That momentary spike can be localized with definable boundaries whereas you cannot do the same with a sinusoidal. As all particles are states that encompass the particles wavefunctions you will require the complex conjugates you do in QM. Also you will invariably will applying density functions. You listed two of them but another extremely important one is the probability density functions In the Langrangian you apply any field related details under the potential energy term (coupling constants etc) the momentum terms is the kinetic energy terms. Both of these will vary uncertainty, flux, harmonic oscillator, field variations etc can be and usually is factored in. There is no single langrene formula, one can arbitrarily apply their own Langrene to anything involving kinematic motion. This includes scatterings aka Feymann Integrals as one example. Flux, density and mass are unavoidable terms when your talking field excitations. Mass is simply resistance to inertia change or acceleration. In essence QFT literally describes how the field varies (perturbs) where particles are localized field variations.