Jump to content
robheus

"Strand theory" model of unified physical system

Recommended Posts

M. Can you not supply a mathematical basis for a single strand ?

This is a mathematical description of a strand, even if you do not like it: A strand is a one-dimensional line of Planck radius, without ends, without stiffness, without any observable physical property, randomly fluctuating in three-dimensional background space.

 

M: You have no idea how many ppl state this or that alternative model is just like the standard model.

Yes, I have an idea: zero. I bet that you cannot name a single person with an alternative model that is able to deduce a single fundamental constant (mass, coupling, mixing) that appears in the standard model.

 

M: I can mathematically describe the range of each force or the decay rates and mean lifetime of a particle.

Good. Many can do this. For the range of QED and QCD I summarized it above. Mean lifetimes are determined by branching ratios. These in turn are determined by Feynman vertices, masses and coupling constants.

 

M: I can mathematically describe particle generations.

Many can do this: you just need their number, namely 3, their mass values, their mixings and their coupling constant values.

The challenge of any model is to explain where the number 3 comes from, where the coupling constants come from, where the mixings come from, and where the masses come from. These numbers determine decay rates, branching ratios etc. The tangle model says that the number 3 comes from tangle topology. The tangle model says that couplings derive from the probability of Reidemeister moves, speaking loosely. The tangle model states that mixings derive from the specific tangle structure. The tangle model also says that mass derive from tangle complexity, and that the tangle structure determines the mass value.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Post the relevant equations then.

Provide the equations showing how the Reidemeister moves correspond to any of the Feymann diagrams you posted provide at least something that proves it can do what you claim.

If the only equations that are involved are those used by QFT already then there literally is no purpose to use your tangle model. 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

M: Provide the equations showing how the Reidemeister moves correspond to any of the Feymann diagrams you posted provide at least something that proves it can do what you claim.

The logic is this: Tangle core shape determine the quantum phase of a fermion such as the electron. Shape deformations behave like interactions. Shape deformations come in three kinds: Reidemeister moves I, II and III. The first Reidemeister move, the twist deformation, defines U(1). The proof is simple: twists can be generalized to arbitrary angles and can be added (in the same way as rotations can be added). And two standard twists (by 180°) are equivalent to none. Twists thus reproduce the U(1) algebra. Thus the generalized twists (to arbitrary angles) generate the U(1) group. (Indeed, twist rotations *represent* the U(1) group: their composition/multiplication is a U(1) *representation*.) Twists naturally act only on chiral tangles. So it becomes natural to define tangle chirality as electric charge. Topologically, electric charge (=chirality) is conserved. And also topologically, charge can only appear on tangles with 2 or 3 strands. Thus electric charges only appears on particles with mass. Thus electric charges move slower than light. Localised charges (at rest) naturally lead to 1/r^2 in three dimensions. Together (and by mathematical theorems cited in the paper) these three properties about electric charge imply the Maxwell's equations and the Lagrangian (-1/4)FF for the free electromagnetic field plus minimal coupling to electric charge. Minimal coupling implies the Feynman vertex of QED (and only this one). Together with the Dirac equation, this implies perturbative QED. (The preprint on QED gives some more details, including the arguments for deriving the fermion/Dirac Lagrangian.) This is the argument train that appears to imply that Reidemeister move I leads to perturbative QED.

 

M: If the only equations that are involved are those used by QFT already then there literally is no purpose to use your tangle model. 

This is completely true! The only equations that arise from the logic just given are exactly those of perturbative QFT, or perturbative QED in the case of electrodynamics. Only the QED Lagrangian arises, without any change whatsoever. There is no deviation at all. There is indeed no purpose to use the tangle model for any calculation in perturbative QED.

But there is a small addition: you can *determine* the masses of elementary particles and the fine structure constant from (statistical) tangle geometry. It is a small addition, because it does not change perturbative QED. But it is an intriguing small addition, because perturbative QED does not determine these numbers. The tangle model states that these numbers are not free parameters, but unique, fixed and calculable constants.

 

One reason to be interested in the fundamental constants such as the fine structure constant and the electron mass is the following.

All colours in nature are due to these two constants. As long as we do not understand the origin of these two constants, we do not understand the origin of the colours around us.

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, motionmountain said:

A strand is a one-dimensional line of Planck radius, without ends, without stiffness, without any observable physical property, randomly fluctuating in three-dimensional background space.

Being non-physicist this is puzzling to me.

What is a mathematical theory in which lines have radius? By default a line is a certain geometrical object, and in geometry it is a circle that has a radius, whereas a line does not.

The notion of stiffness seems to relate to a rigidity notion, though I have not seen it as a defined concept anywhere. Why is 'stiffness' important enough to explicitly exclude as a relevant property? You did not add "without colour".

It is superfluous to say that lines have no physical properties. They are abstract objects.

To 'fluctuate' only makes sense for systems for which you have a number or other measure to assign to their size. A single object does not fluctuate. But if you speak of any kind of time dependence here, then it contradicts the first part of your description, which speaks of time independent entities.

If you say 'randomly', your description to be complete has to provide information about a relevant (type of) probability distribution.

Edited by taeto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are right. The original statement was sloppy.

A strand is a nearly one-dimensional tube of Planck radius without ends - and without mass, colour, stiffness, energy, charge or any other observable physical property - randomly fluctuating in shape in three-dimensional background space.

You are right that a probability distribution must be specified. But this topic leads too far. In short, it must and can be specified in such a way that known physics is reproduced.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

You are right. The original statement was sloppy.

A strand is a nearly one-dimensional tube of Planck radius without ends - and without mass, colour, stiffness, energy, charge or any other observable physical property - randomly fluctuating in shape in three-dimensional background space.

You are right that a probability distribution must be specified. But this topic leads too far. In short, it must and can be specified in such a way that known physics is reproduced.

 

 

Then do so. You also mentioned how some things imply other things, show it mathematically (give some examples that include numbers). You also said electric charge moves slower than light, how fast does it move exactly? You are hand waving, over, and over. Mordred is giving you plenty of room to include math, he even showed you an example thread. You however, are hand waving, avoiding the subject and being sloppy.

What is a nearly one-dimensional tube? Although fractal dimensions are a thing, they have to do with self-similarity. Is your tube/line one-dimensional or not? What makes it 'nearly?. You assert, assert, and assert. Yet where is your evidence, where are the mathematical formulas attached to this? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

You should at least be able to apply wave equations to describe how the tube would bend and twist. Stiffness would be describable as tension. If you want an applicable mathematical methodology then employ string theory it has the relevant mathematics.

The nice thing the numerous physics models is that the same mathematical techniques can be employed regardless of theory.

Though tension would be described differently under GR and thus QFT via the stress energy momentum tensor. Obviously QFT can also model wave dynamics. 

You would want to pick a methodology that saves legwork. After all one shouldn't need to rewrite all of physics to develop a different model.

(In The Langrangian link in Orion's reference 4 on the last set of posts is an excellent article on the SM model. ). So at least you will have a good starting point on the effective action of observables of the SM model.

Strong hint focus on the longitudinal and transverse components of a wave. Then figure out how to describe those with Reidemeister moves. There is already some papers to support in that.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)



D : You also said electric charge moves slower than light, how fast does it move exactly?

Things move as fast as you accelerate them. The point is that in nature, there are thing that move at light speed (such as photons) and others that do not, such as massive particles. All electric charges have mass. This is a natural result in the strand conjecture.


D : What is a nearly one-dimensional tube?

That is a tube that is so thin (Planck radius, 10^-35 m) that in most cases its diameter can be neglected.

 

D : You assert, assert, and assert.

No. There is only *one* assertion: that the fundamental principle of the strand conjecture allows to derive the Lagrangian of the standard model. Above I gave the mathematical arguments step by step that lead to the Dirac equation (done in 1980 by Battey-Pratt & Racey), to Maxwell's equations (done by Heras in 2007), to the gauge groups via Reidemeister moves, to the particle spectrum via tangle classification, and to the fundamental constants, via statistical tangle geometry. You can discuss every single argument in this argument chain; there might be one or even several errors in each step. But writing "assert, assert, assert" is not the same as finding an error.

 

M: You should at least be able to apply wave equations to describe how the tube would bend and twist.

Alas, this is not possible. It is easy to see that this cannot work. First, tubes are not observable. Second, tubes have no tension, no mass, etc and cannot be described by wave equations. Third, if one could, then they would be a kind of hidden variables. And then one could not get quantum theory, which forbids non-contextual hidden variables.

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

A wave doesn't need to be observable to be mathematically defined. Ghost fields does this all the time. QFT also seperates observables from non observables. Perfect example is virtual particles 

1 hour ago, motionmountain said:



Things move as fast as you accelerate them. The point is that in nature, there are thing that move at light speed (such as photons) and others that do not, such as massive particles. All electric charges have mass. This is a natural result in the strand conjecture.


D : What is a nearly one-dimensional tube?

That is a tube that is so thin (Planck radius, 10^-35 m) that in most cases its diameter can be neglected.

 

Flow of charge or flow of electrons ? There is a distinctive difference. The mediator for charge flow is the photon. So while electrons move less than c the flow of charge is still c.

Ok you have given some dimensionality for a strand now here is my question 

What is the strand composed of ? Energy does not exist on its own and the strands give rise to the SM particles so they cannot be composed of those.

See the problem here ? Your above description included materialistic terms ie stiffness etc 

You should see by now you need to define a strand so there is no ambiguity. Particularly since you specified in your bet that there are no further particles outside those of the SM model though you later on had to change your original theory to incorporate the Higgs. (The criteria of your bet are also assertions) yet you haven't provided any mathematics to reflect those limitations under your bet.

QFT doesn't even declare the SM model is complete no physics theory does.

 

Ok let's try this tactic. Provide some good links from other authors outside your work such as Schiller if I'm not mistaken that has the missing details (ie actual applicable mathematics) let's progress this discussion to something more useful. A good peer reviewed article would at least give me a trail of references to research.

For example is Wilson loops applicable on open and closed loops. I've seen Reidemeister moves applications in this regard 

This is a good example of what I after from you. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0410329&ved=2ahUKEwiMkozvyavoAhX5KDQIHQkZDn0QFjABegQIBxAL&usg=AOvVaw1tTQ6TZI4Aeh2R8cMyA8j9

Knot diagramatics from Arxiv. You can readily see from this example that mathematics can certainly be employed to describe your tangle theory.

This link even gives correlations to the SU(N) gauge so you can use this for the Hamilton's.

(Note while I assist others in theory development I expect them to do the work) also note the article does not give any physicality to the strands and tangles they are strictly math relations. That is where your theory deviates. (At least from your descriptives this thread)

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M: What is the strand composed of ?

Nothing. Composition would imply observability.
Nature is a single, tangled strand.

 

M: Energy does not exist on its own and the strands give rise to the SM particles so they cannot be composed of those. See the problem here ? Your above description included materialistic terms ie stiffness etc.

Strands have no observable properties: no stiffness, no energy, no mass, etc. It seems to me that there are no contradictions. Or maybe I misunderstand your remark.

 

M: The criteria of your bet are also assertions. 

Of course. That is the nature of any bet. What I just want to stress is that all of them follow from one basic assertion, namely that strands describe nature.

 

M: QFT doesn't even declare the SM model is complete no physics theory does.

Of course QFT does not declare this. One of the interests for the strand conjecture is that it does so, in contrast to QFT, because it does not allow more particles, it does not allow more forces, and it does not allow different values of the fundamental constants. These arguments are all not possible in QFT.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The mark you missed is your descriptives. The term stiffness for example describes a material property. 

 So clarification is needed from you as this is your theory. You need to be clear on how your describing a strand.

9 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

 

Nothing. Composition would imply observability.
Nature is a single, tangled strand

 

Why ? What proof can you provide to support this statement 

9 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

One of thr interests for the strand conjecture is that it does so, in contrast to QFT, because it does not allow more particles, it does not allow more forces, and it does not allow different values of the fundamental constants. These arguments are all not possible in QFT.

 

Why what proof can you provide to support this statement. Though the fundamental constants I agree on QFT doesn't have varying value's for fundamental constants however it doesn't preclude the possibility

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

About stiffness: I stressed that strands have no stiffness. Strands are not a material, they have no observable properties. Stiffness is not a property that they have. But maybe I misunderstand your point here?

About composition: If something (A) is said to be made of something else (B), both A and B are observable. But in the strand conjecture strands are not observable. They are not composed of something else. They cannot be. In other terms, the strand conjecture claims that nature (space, fermions, bosons, horizons, black holes) is made of many strand segments. The total strand is nature. But maybe you asked about something else?

About the statement that the strand conjecture "does not allow more particles, it does not allow more forces, and it does not allow different values of the fundamental constants." The proof is possible:

1. Forces are deformations of tangles; all deformations of tangles are composed of Reidemeister moves (this is  a mathematical theorem); there are only three such moves (this is a mathematical theorem proven by Reidemeister in 1926); so there are only three gauge interactions, with U(1), broken SU(2), and SU(3). (Gravity is a separate story.)

2. Elementary particles are rational tangles. They can be elementary only if made of 1, 2 or 3 strands. Exploring the possible tangle options yields the known gauge bosons and the Higgs boson, the 6 quarks and the 6 leptons. More options are not possible.

3. The fundamental constants (masses, coupling constants and mixing angles) are due to (statistical) tangle core geometry. The (average) tangle geometry is unique, so the constants are unique. Strands do not allow different values of the fundamental constants.

Still, the strand model can be wrong, of course. Many experiments listed in the bet page can prove the model wrong; for example, finding dark matter would invalidate the model, or finding grand unification, or finding that the fine structure constant varies across the universe. But also theory can prove the model wrong: one could find that the fundamental constants come out with the wrong values, for example.

-

I want to add that your questions are very useful to me. Thank you.

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

For example is Wilson loops applicable on open and closed loops. I've seen Reidemeister moves applications in this regard  This is a good example of what I after from you. 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0410329&ved=2ahUKEwiMkozvyavoAhX5KDQIHQkZDn0QFjABegQIBxAL&usg=AOvVaw1tTQ6TZI4Aeh2R8cMyA8j9

Knot diagramatics from Arxiv. You can readily see from this example that mathematics can certainly be employed to describe your tangle theory.

This link even gives correlations to the SU(N) gauge so you can use this for the Hamilton's.

(Note while I assist others in theory development I expect them to do the work) also note the article does not give any physicality to the strands and tangles they are strictly math relations. That is where your theory deviates. (At least from your descriptives this thread)

Sorry, I did not see this. I know Lou Kauffman and I know his work well. He has inspired several ideas of the strand conjecture. Thank you for the link.

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Ok your still missing the point. So far the only proof you have been offering is nothing more than a conjecture viewpoint. You haven't anything of substance beyond what you feel and think.

 So far disproving your theory amounts to simply changing your mind. Your strands are unobservable, they have no mathematics to make predictions. Outside what you feel.

When I asked for proof I was hoping you would have at least provided some math or other evidence beyond your words and thoughts.

So what about the pion and kaon or the several hundred resonant particles in the particle data group ?

They are not comprised of other particles and the only significant difference is stability. They are all all identifiably unique from one another. However they are real measurable particles.

The symmetry groups you mentioned Do not prevent other particles elementary are otherwise. 

That is not the function of the symmetry groups. The function is to describe the vector or spinor relations and commutations etc. In much the same manner as SO(3.1) describes GR and kinematics.

Ok let's try this a particle is a field excitation under QFT.

What restriction applies to the possible field excitations ?

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mordred said:

So what about the pion and kaon or the several hundred resonant particles in the particle data group ?

They are not comprised of other particles and the only significant difference is stability. They are all all identifiably unique from one another. However they are real measurable particles.

The symmetry groups you mentioned Do not prevent other particles elementary are otherwise.

I do not understand your point completely, so I will try.

The pion and kaon are hadrons, made of two quarks; they are not elementary. The strand conjecture reproduces the quark model, in all its details. For example, strands successfully predict (retrodict) the mass sequence among hadrons (via the sequence of tangle complexity) and correctly predict (retrodict) which of the mesons violate CP. This is discussed on the motion mountain website. Thus, the hundreds of mesons and baryons are reproduced. (The tangles for a few dozen mesons and baryons are also found there.) Strands also seem to allow statements about Regge trajectories and tetraquarks. In retrospect, given that strands reproduce QFT, all this is not too surprising.

Indeed, the gauge symmetry groups have nothing to do with the limits on the number of (really) elementary particles. Those limits come from the Reidemeister moves, and thus from the tangle model. And strands also limit the number of gauge groups - thus forbid grand unification, for example. These predictions come from strands, not from QFT.

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Go through the particle data group. See the list of resonant particles they are in italics. However your still missing the important point.

All your assertions has zero proof to counter other than your declaration that this or that is so.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Mordred said:

All your assertions has zero proof to counter other than your declaration that this or that is so.

 

Of course you are entitled to you opinion. But I'm afraid it is not correct.

There is *just one* assertion: fluctuating strands describe nature (the so-called "fundamental principle"). All other statements derive from this basic idea, with arguments and logic that anybody can question, discuss, check and refute. The detailed arguments lead to the Hilbert Lagrangian and to the standard model Lagrangian. I have summarized the main arguments in the previous messages. There are preprints with those arguments that can be read, checked and refuted, if there is something wrong.

Strands predict the number of elementary particles (i.e., the number of quarks, leptons and elementary bosons), the number of interactions (3 gauge interactions plus gravity) and provides limits for the fundamental constants. No other proposal does this.

About "zero proof". Every deduction from the fundamental principle of the strand conjecture agrees with all experiments. Strands predict that general relativity and the standard model describe nature completely at sub-galactic scales. In simple terms, strands predict that nothing will be discovered in this domain: no new particles, no dark matter partciles, no new forces, no new symmetries, no new energy scales, no higher dimensions, no new fundamental constants. Some new predictions are made. The ways to deduce the predictions is public and everybody can follow them and criticize them - as you are doing. Nothing is hidden. Everybody can perform experiments and test the predictions. This is exactly how research advances and proofs are made in physics.  

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

So convince me otherwise verbal assertions isn't proof.

I could as readily assert the universe is made of fairy dust.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have different concept of what a "proof" is in physics.

I have a simple one: a statement is correct if it agrees with experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We have a different definition of proof most likely due to my being a  physicist. According to your own replies a strand isn't made of any particles or energy. It isn't made of anything according to you. Yet you have a tube of Planck radius. How and why ?

Can you measure a strand = no

Can you provide experimental evidence of a strand = no

Can we describe the SM model without strands=yes.

So where is your proof other than your say so ?

Go ahead provide experimental evidence for a strand yes that's a challenge to you. You cannot even provide a mathematical proof

The burden of proof is in your court it's also a requirement on this forum. 

46 minutes ago, motionmountain said:

 

I have a simple one: a statement is correct if it agrees with experiment.

How can it not ? You have zero equations of your own. The equations used in QFT etc are not evidence that strands are needed. Quite the opposite they work without strands. They can also explain family generations. Which you asserted they don't 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Can you provide experimental evidence of a strand = no

Yes, I can: strands explain the number and gauge groups of the interactions, the number of elementary particles, and the fundamental constants. Strands explain why protons have the same charge as positrons. By explaining the fine structure constant and the mass of the electron, strands explain all colors in nature. Strands explain the lack of a Landau pole and a vanishing vacuum energy. Strands explain the field equations of general relativity. Strands explain black hole entropy and the no-hair theorem. Strands make predictions about the neutrino mass sequence.

The standard model cannot do any of this. 

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a lot. Did you say earlier that we can throw in dark matter as well? I have not studied any of this yet, so is there any particular paper that you can recommend as a starter, preferably in which one of these explanations/predictions gets proved in full or a proof gets outlined?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, motionmountain said:

Yes, I can: strands explain the number and gauge groups of the interactions, the number of elementary particles, and the fundamental constants. Strands explain why protons have the same charge as positrons. By explaining the fine structure constant and the mass of the electron, strands explain all colors in nature. Strands explain the lack of a Landau pole and a vanishing vacuum energy. Strands explain the field equations of general relativity. Strands explain black hole entropy and the no-hair theorem. Strands make predictions about the neutrino mass sequence.

The standard model cannot do any of this. 

 

Once again verbal claims where is your evidence ? Where is your proof. 

You have zero zip mathematics of your own model.

You cannot even mathematically describe a strand so where is your proof it does as you claim.

Have you not figured it out yet I do not accept claims without proof....

Show some flipping proof to your claims. You have been unable to substantiate s single claim you have made the entire thread.

All you have provided is what you believe Show me how you can explain black holes or neutrino mass sequence etc etc beyond claiming you can.

prove me wrong give me the temperature neutrinos drop out of thermal equilibrium and calculate the mean average density of the neutrino family at that blackbody temperature. Your the expert provide the answer.

provide me the equation to calculate the range of the weak force.

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Mordred said:

You have been unable to substantiate s single claim you have made the entire thread.

 

In physics, proof is given by logical deduction from a single principle combined with agreement with observations.

Go to the motion mountain website and look for the preprints Strands-QED.pdf and Strands-Gravitation.pdf , or for (the much longer) motionmountain-volume6.pdf . You will find the logical deduction of black holes from strands, of the neutrino mass sequence from tangle complexity, and of all the differences between the tangle model and the standard model. You can read that the range of the weak force depends on the W and Z mass (these are fundamental constants), and that estimates of these masses and their ratio are possible. The texts list many predictions and retrodictions; they are all deduced by inescapable logic from the strand conjecture.

You and anybody else can check the logic of the deductions and criticize it. There can be errors! But it would help to be a little more specific than the quoted sentence.

I do understand your anger. Deducing the standard model and general relativity from unobservable strands is hard to swallow. The only thing I can do is to point out the many results, the various new results, the astonishing consistency, the surprising completeness, and the fascinating simplicity of the conjecture.

Maybe one further thought can underline this. Strands realize the old vision by Bronshtein: strands are simply a tool to deduce all of physics from h-bar, c and G.

 

 

 

 

Edited by motionmountain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 I have read your papers already. I found them lacking in critical details. This is something one must be prepared for when defending a model.  Lets put it this way I have a Masters degree in Cosmology which my focus of big bang nucleosynthesis required me to also pick up a degree in particle physics. 

 Now I do not state the above to boast, this site does have a few PH. D physicists.

 Now here is the interesting part, I do not care if your model is right or wrong provided there is viability

So the question I put forward to you is do you wish to advance your conjecture in the proper physics methodology which requires the relevant mathematics?  Or do you feel your random assertions are sufficient? 

You will note I have already provided examples where your strands can be modeled via the link I provided.

 The question I have is are you prepared to do the necessary steps ?

PS I may sound angry but personally I do not care what you believe. I simply wish to know if I am wasting my time in providing guidance to help you develop  a strong robust model. 

Now on a more personal  note I don't visit forums to advertise  or seek answers. I visit forums to help teach. I never teach personal  views or thoughts. Everything I state I am prepared to defend via textbook answers or peer reviewed material. I do have a further advantage in that I have been doing physics for 35 years or so. Lol my own dissertation was long ago proven wrong. Though back then I only had COBE data to work from. WMAP and Planck data wasn't available.

Life goes on.

 

Edited by Mordred

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M, all help and all suggestions are welcome. Thank you in advance. In fact, help in cosmology would be particularly welcome. I already tried to contact you, but one link in your signature is broken and the other has no contact data. Feel free to post or to email constructive advice.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.