Questing Posted January 17, 2016 Author Share Posted January 17, 2016 Ok let's take a universe that changes, not in its fundamental laws. Our universe underwent several changes. Radiation dominant, matter dominant, Lambda dominant. Each phase involves one or more phase changes. (All of which follow thermodynamic and particle physics) (Hint show how thermodynamic correlated particle physics correspond to your definition of an evolutionary universe). Good luck, I suggest taking your time and studying the material provided. Is this a subject within your competence? Thermodynamic correlated particles. So will you address this or not? I have no idea if this claim is true, but for sure you have not presented any theory here nor provided any solid foundations. So far it is not clear that you have achieved anything! You have not presented a theory. I have read the thread. I still claim that all you have done is throw words together. You have admitted you have no idea about quite fundamental parts of your loose idea. The circumstance is that you do not have a theory and you have just thrown words together and that you lack incite into how to develop your lose ideas. You simply cannot address my points. Agree... so what? You have not done that here! More empty shoot from the hip content. Or more superfluous than usual even. Who said practice doesn't make perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajb Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Nothing of what you say really begs a response. Then why have you come to a forum if not to discuss your ideas and improve them? The field doesn't undergo biological evolution. Its not biology silly. Darwinian! Okay, so what is your meaning of 'evolution' in the context of field theory? I though you now admitted that you have no idea! Unless you can add some 'meat' to this there really is little to discuss. You really are going on about nothing. A little tedious If you really think I am going on about nothing, then this just shows how ignorant of modern science you really are. More empty shoot from the hip content. Or more superfluous than usual even. Who said practice doesn't make perfect. I really do not understand your mind set. Are you just a troll? Please tell me what you expect from the members of this forum? ------------------------ The closest thing to 'evolution' of a field that at all resembles the opening post is the mechanism of spontaneous symmetry breaking and Goldstone's theorem. Related to this is the Higgs-Kibble mechanism. All of this us very important for the standard model and the physics of the early universe. Edited January 17, 2016 by ajb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 (edited) Is this a subject within your competence? Thermodynamic correlated particles. Yes it is. welcome to Cosmology applications that naturally include physics, thermodynamics and particle physics. Of course you also need relativity and differential geometry with statistical mathematics. What's your expertise? (Granted QM is needed I'm cosmology to understand the principle of least action in say the SO(1.3) Lorentz group in gauge symmetry. Which is also used to deal with how particles move.) Trust me resident experts and above can easily see to persons with low physics knowledge. If you knew basic physics. You would not have needed to Google the term "work". PS that term is taught in high school physics (in Canada grade 3) Here is The crux. Direction on improving your ideas have been provided. Learn.... Several experts have read your OP. We all find it lacking and full of errors. Rather than nit pick them. We chose to provide teaching. choice is yours. In order to understand the involved math you will need to understand why that math works. Or why it was developed to be so hard fast and tried. As of yet you've not shown one shred of evidence that thousands of professional scientists are wrong. Edited January 17, 2016 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ophiolite Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 When did I say that? In failing to provide even a smidgen of detail as to how a field replicates you left open the implication that by replicate you meant precisely duplicate. Even asexual biological reproduction is a non perfect process, and so changes accumulate from generation to the next. It might be that change is inevitable. Then advanced life forms developed sexual reproduction, which increased efficiency of genetic experimentation, enhancing genetic diversity. And how is any of that mirrored in the "replication of fields"? (That may be , with the same hyperbole you employed, the 100th anniversary of that request.) In any case, for you to ask that question, it must be that you haven't read my thread. If you mean this thread then you are incorrect. If you mean the one located elsewhere, no. But as has been pointed out to you, this is where the discussion on this forum should take place. If you lack the ability to explain your hypothesis clearly and concisely here don't go blaming others for your deficiencies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Klaynos Posted January 17, 2016 Share Posted January 17, 2016 ! Moderator Note Thread locked. This didn't meet our minimum requirements for speculations. Do not reintroduce this topic. You may appeal this decision by reporting this post. To do so you must show substantial progress in answering some of the questions and or provide a mathematical framework. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts