Mordred

In a sense but that is too simple a picture. The number of E folds is a consequence of the kinetic vs the potential energy terms within the equation of state for the scalar field. As simple as possible for an explanation the high kinetic energy of the particles involves greatly exceeded any binding potential energy of the fields at that time. Which prior to electroweak symmetry breaking were in essence one field as you have no effective weak, strong Em or Higgs field. You wouldn't even have an effective gravitational field. In essence without a mass term you effectively don't have any real binding energy. It is the binding energy of field interactions that lead to the mass terms. Any high energy density will trend to a lower energy density unless binding energy prevents it from doing so. Once the volume increases sufficiently to allow temperatures to drop (temperature is the average kinetic energy in a volume) to allow symmetry breaking resulting in the mass terms the rate of expansion begins the slow roll phase in inflation. A useful analogy might help think of a very high positive pressure zone. That high pressure zone will want to disperse to a lower pressure state. Much like a balloon when you pop it. Though in the case of the universe there isn't a lower surrounding pressure region like the balloon. There is no outside the universe. However the similarity is there.

Nah in this case it brought up an interesting thought experiment.

Well you will certainly get gravitational wave chirps as well as variations in any EM signals emitting from the accretion disks including the accretion jets. If you want further detail on gravitational wave chirps the commonly used formulas are provided here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chirp_mass.

Glad you found a workable solution. That solution works well for me. Lol you had me really thinking on that one. It's definitely a scenario I really hadn't thought of before tbh.

Ask yourself is any object in the universe today or then truly at rest. Under GR all observers are inertial. Under SR the observer is always considered at rest even if they are in actuality in motion. The fundamental problem with that is velocity c isn't considered a valid inertial reference frame. It's a very good question that may be a point where relativity breaks down to not being useful.

One of the QFT tricks to handle renormalization to handle divergences in a field theory is to employ a regulator operator. The main divergences being IR and UV divergence. Using Planck units provide a lower and upper bound (upper being Planch temp as one example) were all familiar with the lower lol. One of the problems is that we do not know of any upper boundary to mass density.

In the FLRW metric they use what's called a fundamental observer. That is in essence an observer situated on the global mean average Mass potential. This link has a half decent explanation https://people.ast.cam.ac.uk/~pettini/Intro Cosmology/Lecture01.pdf

The small size made prior to inflation made any anistropy trivial even any plausible curvature would be trivial. Your time frames above for symmetry break are within estimated values. I had a copy of his original paper on inflation. Might still have it in my archives he did at one time utilize the inflaton. May have changed it when he published his book. Prior to thr symmetry breaking one can accurately describe the universe via its temperature exclusively with the volume as all particles were in thermal equilibrium. So would only need the Bose Einstein statistics to calculate the number density of photons. This doesn't mean photons were the only particle but rather one couldn't distinguish any particular particle species at this point in time.

I too had issues with the inflaton or using any of the quasi particles such as the curvaton (Coleman) etc. However the Higgs inflation models produce the same scalar equation of state as the inflaton so as such has been gaining a wide spread popularity including Inflationary Encyclopedadia which examines the most likely Inflationary models for best fit. I also found a couple of papers from Alen Guth who has also switched to Higgs inflation from the inflaton. . I decided to examine how the equation of state for Higgs was derived as well as its Breit Weigner cross sections, Saha equation and Bose Einstein statistics to further examine the feasibility. The formulas I have posted on the thread I have in the BB nucleosynthesis thread in Speculations. As I rarely take any papers on verbatim. I couldn't find any reason to doubt the feasibility not yet anyways lol. The Higgs inflation model can produce a number of E-folds in the required range to satisfy observation data. When one considers the kinetic energy terms vs the potential energy terms via the scalar field equations of state along with the critical density associations it becomes readily apparent that the initial conditions are ripe for an Inflationary expansion. However despite my personal research that is still just my opinion on the topic lmao. Regardless the Higgs inflation model has become my personal choice as to the most likely of the inflation models.

On the contrary the majority of our members enjoy well thought out and well presented debates on a wide variety of topics. Simply pulling ideas out of one's imagination typically doesn't qualify. For example humming itself would be extremely unlikely to affect anything with regards to the food being cooked. If the food tastes better due to humming then the likely argument is that the humming affects the mental susceptibility to enjoying the food that has been cooked. Taste is highly subjective to mental states and personal opinions. We all have those relatives that no matter how good a meal is prepared or how well it tastes they will find disgusting

You need to understand the process producing the light to get a handle on the initial frequencies of light that should be produced. Hydrogen for example has extremely well understood spectral lines. Standard candles as StringJunky mentioned are also used. Any well understood process can serve as a standard candle. Secondly we don't rely strictly on redshift alone to determine distance or motion. Other methods include parallax, in several forms as well as luminosity distance. Though the latter is also subjective to redshift. The luminosity of a star depends primarily on its composition and mass.

Yes the speed limit also results in a maximum speed limit to causality.

Unfortunately the common descriptive of c is the speed of light in a vacuum. That likely is what Geordief is referencing.

! Moderator Note Moved this thread to classical physics, as the problem is classical in nature. The wing will snap where it's mounted while the wing will want to thrust upwards it would be unable to do so as the positive pressure below the wing is pushing downward on the toroidal containment wall which in turn will try to thrust downward in response while the wing attempts to thrust upward. It would be similar to placing a plate behind a fan. The fan would push down on the plate however the plate won't move as the fan is attached to it. As far as pressure differentials your specified a vacuum outside to toroidal wind tunnel so you wouldn't have a preferred direction for the positive pressure to flow to a lower pressure potential. The containment walls themself also prevent the positive pressure flow to reach a lower pressure potential. As there is no path you wouldn't get any thrust as a result of pressure differentials. A simple experiment to validate the above. Place a water hose with a gate valve on a scale. Measure the weight with the hose filled with water but not flowing. Then measure with flow. You won't see any difference. Edit butterfly valve not gate valve lol.

As a vector gauge boson under QFT gluond are required to be massless. Vector gauge bosons are typically offshell. Experiments show less than a few Mev if they have any mass at all. One way to think of it is vector bosons on Feymann diagram are internal wavy lines. Real particles are on the external lines. All vector bosons are off shell internal lines on the Feymann diagram as the field mediator.

@Genady by the way thanks I did enjoy watching the lecture. It's nice to get a good mental challenge with a physics subject once in a while.

Well that I agree with though our universe isn't static so we will always have fluxes of mass distribution as every body is is motion and tends to clump into LSS. Anyways we both agree the Shell theorem is accurate. Which is good in so far as the FLRW metric critical density formula applies the Shell theorem as its basis. Edit Granted the scenario in the infinite case amounts to an impossibility once you consider causality. The influence of gravity also being limited to c

Ok I had to go back one lecture towards the end of lecture one to get the breadth of his statement. If you sum the masses symmetrically then Newtons Shell theorem is accurate. However if you choose a different point q off centre of point P you can get any arbitrary answer. Which highlights to ordering of how you add the mass. In the first case. The order doesn't matter as it's commutative in the second case it's non commutative I wouldn't necessarily consider Newtons Shell theorem incorrect if the mass is added symmetrically it works in that case. However I can see his argument that the Poisson equations are more accurate in all cases. I'm not sure I fully buy his argument. If I rotate q at the same radius from p and continue to sum the concentric circles I should return to sum zero

Ok I was thinking he may have incorporated the stress energy momentum tensor which he does without referring to it directly in his inflationary lecture.

No it hasn't we count is as a possibility but physicists also realize a graviton as a mediator is not required when spacetime itself is sufficient.

I think you may be referring to negative and positive pressure influences in his inflationary lecture. Where negative pressure can induce repulsive gravity.

Try it, which side would you get a net force if the mass is evenly distributed surrounding any point you choose ? Aside from a net force of zero. I also don't believe Allen Guth claimed Newtons Shell theorem as being incorrect. More likely he added some detail or scenario. If you can find the link we can examine it. Are you familiar with the Principle of least action that equates potential and kinetic energy relations ? You seem to keep wanting particle to interaction for your mechanism however you don't require this. Potential energy being the energy due to location aka field or collection of fields energy. Kinetic energy being the particles momentum.

It also describes the mechanism all particles will choose the path of least action. You do not need gravitons to mediate spacetime. Spacetime curvature is the only mechanism you require which requires the mass term as mentioned even massless particles can contribute to curvature. Try this for a thought experiment take a uniform distribution of mass where every point has the same mass. Then apply Newtons Shell theorem using any random point as the designated centre of mass. In this case you would experience no gravity at any location. You need regions of non uniform mass distribution.

It's more accurate to think of gravity as spacetime curvature. In order to understand how mass affects spacetime curvature you need a few details. 1) Mass is resistance to inertia change or acceleration. 2) spacetime curvature doesn't describe a shape per se, it describes the geodesic paths that particles will follow. If two light beams stay parallel spacetime is flat. If they converge you have positive curvature. If they diverge you have negative curvature 3) All particles and their respective fields contribute to the mass term as well as the curvature. Higgs, EM, strong and weak force included. Subjective to their respective range for each force. An everyday example that may help understand the above. A electronic conductor sending signals past an EM field may experience signal propagation delay as a result of its orientation to that field. This phenomena has remarkable similarities to how spacetime curvature affects other particles and their interactions. Also helps better understand time dilation.

Afiak which is extensive with regards to BBN and inflation all pieces of evidence for inflation are indirect in so far as predicting the correct metalicity with regards to the CMB. Hydrogen, lithium, deuterium etc. We simply cannot see far enough due to the dark ages prior to recombination