Science topic

Quantum Cosmology - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Quantum Cosmology, and find Quantum Cosmology experts.
Questions related to Quantum Cosmology
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
236 answers
Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Dr Richard Gauthier . I agree with Dr Joseph Badir ,
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
10 answers
At Planck scale, the physical gluon acquires third degree of freedom in the form of scaler potential when the unphysical ghost particle effect disappears at Gribov horizon. Now, relativity demands Lorentz Fitzgerald contraction of Planck scale at light speed of gluon. But that would mean sudden demise of quantum theory. In order to unite relativity with quantum theory, the physical gluon speed instead reduces to zero in any inertial frame and accordingly exhibits mass gap property. For more details, please refer to my preprint http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25092.65926
Relevant answer
Answer
The Gribov horizon is the frontier in the space of fields, not in spacetime, where the Faddeev-Popov determinant changes sign. Which just means that a new change of variables is needed. This is just a completely routine technical point, that doesn’t affect perturbative calculations and can be avoided on the lattice. Thzt’s why bringing it up doesn’t help.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
18 answers
If we think we can observe that the same quantum particle can be simultaneously in different places, so maybe that made these places are only one: a track for a holographic theory of Universe?
Relevant answer
Answer
Your profile shows “that each particle of the Universe contains all the laws governing it as the image of the alive cell containing in its core all genetic information to be it living respective.”
I suppose this is the concept you want to discuss in relation to the holographic universe. But I don’t think it is reasonable to propose that one experiment (QM) can create certainty. Moreover, there are also indications that our universe is a self generating fractal and probably there are other similarities that are convincing too (like the topological property of space).
Anyway, there are 2 well known types of theoretical physics that show a relation with your concept. The first one is quantum field theory because the general concept of QFT is that the underlying structure of the basic quantum fields creates all the observable phenomena. That means that every point in space can “display” all the known physical conditions (that have the same size in space as the imaginary “point”). See Art Hobson (2013). "There are no particles, there are only fields" (https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1204/1204.4616.pd)
The second one is the search for the properties of discrete space (the search for quantum gravity). This concept even underlies QFT because it is hypothesized that the structure of space itself creates not only the observable phenomena but also the basic quantum fields. There is an easy to understand YouTube video about the research (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRyo_ee2r0U). The speaker is one of the leading researchers in the field (Renate Loll).
Unfortunately there is a draw back. Most of the involved theorists are convinced that space is really curved. So they don’t interpret the gravitation of General Relativity as a model but they belief that curved spacetime is real. The consequence is the search for forced mathematical solutions like the Ricci scalar curvature (Riemannian geometry). But the Ricci scalar doesn’t reflect the physical properties of the scalars of the Higgs field. So don’t expect a "ready to use" hypothesis.
With kind regards, Sydney
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
6 answers
Dear Colleagues,
I am a liaison (informal) at my university between science and the arts. I have family in planetary astronomy but this is far afield.
A question or two:
What does this newly-reported Radcliffe Wave of gaseous proto-stars tell us about how our galaxy originated?
Is there any chance that this wave will make some difference in our own sun's behavior?
Relevant answer
Dear Preston,
Intriguin view, thanks for sharing Vera Lima
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
15 answers
Following the fringe concepts of the Global Consciousness Project directed by Roger D. Nelson, we propose that the REG (Random Event Generator) device be replaced by the NRCL (Non Repeatable Code Lifetime) generator to enhance the articulation of statistical anomalies possibly caused by nonlinear temporal processes. Such phenomena are succinctly described as processes of "cause preceded by effect".
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Hans,
When Hegel says that " Time does not resemble a container in which everything is as it were borne away and swallowed up in the flow of a stream", you must admit that he is generally/philosophically correct but his viewpoint should also be tested and be enriched through illustrations from scientific disciplines.
So, to be right at some point about something does not mean that all questions on this "something" have been answered once and for all in advance.
To conclude, I believe that looking backwards once in a while could give us sufficient momentum for moving forwards much more efficiently.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Time Particle
Time particles can be those particles which get produce by acquired technology and will be equip with force behind structure, symmetry and patterns, and are responsible for production of an event under the design.  They can perform specific work as specific event particles and capable to manage the conduction of an event.
They can be find by;
1.       Natural particle responsible for time, if there is any near to said purpose
2.       Manipulation of some inborn capabilities/setting in natural particles
3.       Some designed particle for the said purpose.
Event-Control Tools & Techniques (ECTT) has ability to Change the Time
By Event-Control Tools & Techniques (ECTT), we can change the trend line of time, which also prove that time is not a physical and permanently fixed entity. Some close examples of event control via electric charges & magnetic flux might be helping with reference to cosmos under Universal Managemental System.
What can be possible way outs regarding Event-Control Tools & Techniques (ECTT) through Particles, Waves, and Forces ?
What you suggests.....!!
Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
Estimado Raja N A Khan
El paso del tiempo y los experimentos de los productos de la acuicultura. éstos últimos merecedores del Premio Nobel en Física 2017, le dan relevancia y actualidad al planteamiento original de la pregunta y la respuesta con argumentos que emiten hace aproximadamente un año.
Saludos
José Luis
Estimado Raja N A Khan
El paso del tiempo y los experimentos que han encontrado evidencias relacionadas con el "Enlazamiento Cuántico" y la existencia de "Ondas Gravitacionales"; éstos últimos merecedores del Premio Nobel en Física 2017, le dan relevancia y actualidad al planteamiento original de la pregunta y a la respuesta con argumentos que emití hace aproximadamente un año.
Saludos
José Luis
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
58 answers
In an old paper at IJTP, Wim B. Drees argues against Hawking-Hartle's interpretation that wavefunction of the universe implies the probability for the universe to appear from nothing. What do you think?
Relevant answer
Answer
Salvador, I seem you work rather on beliefs.  You believe in quantum gravity, in decoherence as a solution of the Copenhagen interpretation, and in the classical limit of quantum mechanics.  So be it, but that doesn't make them consistent either.  It has been shown that general relativity works, not decoherence (not everyone is convinced) nor quantum gravity. That doesn't make them inconsistent too, agreed.  But contrary to what is widely said, the limit of quantum mechanics is not classical mechanics, they are two different theories based on two distinct representations of Poisson algebras; approximations are possible only in some special cases. If the classical limit is needed for quantum gravity to work and for the wave function of the Universe to exist, that may be a fatal difficulty.
I have good reasons to believe that quantum mechanics is not the final answer, even if it is complete in some meaning, that it is not mathematically consistent, and that it is why quantum gravity can't work.  In the present state of the art, we can only guess.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
212 answers
In order to start going into the topic, let us consider two alternatives. If we think that the photon dies out when absorbed then there is not much to talk about. However, if we consider the second alternative, lets us point out that in loosing its energy it becomes unobservable since our senses as well as all our apparatus need an energy transfer to achieve any detection.
So, if photons do survive after being absorbed they thus became ghost photons, i.e. invisible. Evidently this is problematic. But let us not dismiss so fast.
Let us make an imperfect analogy between a photon and a spring. If the spring vibrates it has an oscillatory energy. If it transfers its oscillatory energy to an external material it looses its energy, but the spring is still alive, it has not disappeared. Well, if you see the photon as an oscillator then the analogy makes some sense.
Let us address now a still more controversial issue. Let us suppose that if the spring is not stressed it has no strain mass. But if it is vibrating it has then just energy without having mass, and this analogically applies to the photon.
Well, let now consider the case of a stressed spring that is vibrating. It has then mass and energy. Again, analogically this applies to massive elementary particles.
Why should we appeal to very complicated models and theories? Is it really worthy?
Those interested in this viewpoint and willing to go deeper into this issue may read the paper: “Space, this great unknown”, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301585930_Space_this_great_unknown
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Daniel.
How much credibility can we grant to theoretical physics?
It looks like you prefer to rely on the conventional theoretical physics, however the image that theorists are giving is not that much upright. Let me illustrate this.
In December 2015 an excess at 3.6 local sigmas was observed at 750 GeV in the difotonic channel (H → γγ), by pure chance, both in ATLAS and CMS (LCMF, Dec 15, 2015). This led to the publication of more than 600 theoretical articles in arXiv about the process (LCMF, Mar 22, 2016). Months later the excess disappeared (LCMF, 05 Aug 2016).
So, in a few months 600 theoretical articles were written justifying a fake event. What is therefore the credibility of mathematical issues in view that they can manage to justify an inexistent upshot?
Theorists should be more careful in “not throwing so many stones against the roof of their house”. Furthermore, “Publish or perish” may not be so wise after all and publishing compulsivity may have the opposite effect.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
15 answers
What additional quantum number has the antiparticle that annihilate it? The sign of its Ricci scalar curvature in the non-Euclidean space-time?
Quantum gravity
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Piero,
“…The vacuum is not actually, an empty entity like a container: the vacuum is not empty but it is more like a physical mean…”
“Physical vacuum”[or “Aether”], if it exists [and it exists with a great probability] isn’t the Matter’s spacetime. It  is a component of Matter, and, as the rest in Matter, exists and changes in the Matter’s [5]4D Euclidian spacetime, which is, in this sense, an “empty container”.
“…it has its own elasticity and other properties, and, moreover it has an implicit scale (see the attached paper) so that the classical self-similarity is a broken symmetry on small scale and the quantm behavir appears. So quantum mechanics come from the properties of vacuum...”
here I cannot make some rational comment, I was educated in experimental nuclear physics and we studied hydrodynamics on insufficient level for this case. However such claims as, for example, about the vacuum’s “own elasticity” seems can be as  some ad hoc suggestions, some guesses; which can be correct and can be not correct. Since nobody knows – what the physical vacuum is, indeed there is no other variants besides putting forward some suggestions, and testing them experimentally. So for some more convincing claims is necessary to wait corresponding experimental results.
Including “the classical self-similarity is a broken symmetry on small scale and the quantum behavior appears” isn’t, in certain sense [“ontologically”], correct. The quantum uncertainty appears because of that the absolutely fundamental notions/phenomena “a Change” and directly relating to Change “Time” are logically self-inconsistent, thus the states of  any/every changing material object/system of objects become be on some scale of changing uncertain – that was rigorously proven 2500 years ago by Zeno. However this principal uncertainty can be different in different dynamical systems, in the case of the system “Matter” it can be as some “broken symmetry”, but can have other realizations that can be introduced in physics in framework of some other approach also.
If the vacuum generates massive particles, how mass cannot be correlated to it?
that is again a non-evident assertion. For example in the informational model Matter’s spacetime is filled by an Aether that is dense lattice of primary fundamental logic elements, when particles appears if   some FLE is impacted with transmission to it some momentum. The result is creation of some closed-loop algorithm, that moves in the spacetime with the speed of light as a 4D helix, which has 3D projection as de Broglie wave, being at that some 4D gyroscope. The mass of a body is a measure of resistance of the body to change its motion; and in this case it is the resistance of the gyroscope to change its rotation rate vector’s direction and/or its absolute value. Again, the vacuum doesn’t “generate massive particles”, that make other particles, which have the energy value large enough at many types of interactions.
Cheers 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
15 answers
Assume we have two identical clocks made on the earth. One of them is sent to other corner of universe (I mean very far). The clock starts to tick simultaneously (Maybe it is not practical in practice, but lets assume it is possible for now). Then, are both of them measure same value of time or there is possibility that one of them measure slowly or faster than other? Let assume that these two clocks are stationary relative to each other and space-time for both of them are flat not curved.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think the US Military already did this experiment whre they had one stationary clock, and one mounted in a fast moving jet that went around the Earth.   They were the same at the beginning of the test, and different at the end of the test.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
51 answers
Laboratory observation of a freely spinning steel ball apparently reveals rotational drag as predicted by James C. Keith: "It is as if entire reaction force on the universe, a universe which cannot itself react to forces and torques inertially, acted back on the freely spinning mass system causing a real slowing down.", cf. page 11 of appended reference.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Guy.
Regarding the Qui Hong Hu paper, I fully agree with him to the need to define the internal structure of the electron in a self consistent way. He is aware that the electron needs to be represented by coherent electric and magnetic fields.
He was aware of de Broglie's conclusion that an internal electromagnetic oscillation process had to be at play inside elementary particles such as the electron.
He seems not to be aware that the so-called radius of the electron is only the lower limit of integration of the energy making up the rest mass of the electron when integrated with infinity as the upper limit, and that it can in no way be related to an actual potential radius of the electron.
Understandably, the idea that spin represented somehow a rotation, either clockwise or counter clockwise is consistent with the idea of his helix model.
I noted that he associates the so-called "anomalous" magnetic moment correction factor alpha/2pi (initially calculated from theory by Schwinger and that can also be directly calculated from equation 10 and 11 stemming from the 3-spaces model in the paper below from the hydrogen ground state energy (4.35974377E-18 j)) to the electron itself and not to its carrying energy, a state of fact that can be mathematically demonstrated. See first ref below:
I note that his model does not (cannot?) provide the electric and magnetic fields of the rest mass of the electron, and that his representation of the electron in motion does not separate its rest mass from the velocity related relativistic mass increment and momentum energy, both of the latter that can only be provided by the electron carrying energy, separately from its rest mass energy..
I find that his representations of electron and positrons are quite interesting and properly elaborate on top of being self-consistent, but not consistent with an electromagnetically related internal representation of free-moving photons, from which both particles could mechanically be generated and converted back to, a known fact that he is aware of.
Regarding the Han and Nambu paper, I find it aiming at proving that integer charges have to be involved because they find unsatisfactory that fractional up and down quark charges (theoretical apparently from their perspective, but experimentally confirmed in physical reality) do not conform to a mathematical consideration that they find fundamental.
Added note: I observe that their paper was published in 1965, that is 3 years before the first papers reporting physical confirmation of fractional charges of up and down quarks were published. So this explains why they considered the fractional charge option hypothetical as they elaborated their model.
Since from the get go, they do not try to interpret the physically confirmed fractional charges of up and down quarks, I did not study their work in depth.
I must say that in my conception of things, Both localized photons and localized massive elemetary particles (like stable electron, positron, up quark and down quark) can only be made of the same "substance", which can only be kinetic energy as a physically existing substance, whatever it may be, that naturally oscillates between an electric aspect and a magnetic aspect when not in a form representable by the concept of momentum (Hamiltonian and Lagrangian included) related to translational motion.
Regarding the strong force, since the notion of spin being related to a frequency driven oscillation of the magnetic energy of a particle from increasing presence to a maximum followed by a decreasing presence to zero by structure for all elementary electromagnetic particles, the least action equilibrium states that are allowed by the opposing Coulomb attraction versus magnetic repulsion (due to conflicting frequency rates) is sufficient to explain baryon stability, the concept of strong force is not required from this perspective.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
9 answers
If the cosmos was created out of nothingness in the Big Bang, what determined the size (or scale) of fundamental particles, like the proton and the electron? In the past people thought that GOD determined their scale, but this is not a scientific answer. So, what may have determined the scale of material existence?
Relevant answer
Answer
In a different point of view, if the initial creation was in scale 5 of the squeezed quantum states, then it would expand enough to convert to scale 4. Scale 4 is the occurrence of 4 dimensional worm holes in a 6 dimensional folded space time. Worm holes at scale 4 predict rapid expansion continuing until conversion to scale 3 which is still 6 dimensional folded space time, but expanding more slowly. At conversion to scale 2 an unfolding begins and is described as 5 dimensions. Eventually scale one occurs which is General Relativity 4 dimensions and invariant Planck Constant. It follows from the requirements of deep space transport at high speed where it can be tested.   
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
6 answers
Erik verlinde said; this emergent gravity constructed using the insights of string theory, black hole physics and quantum information theory(all these theories are struggling to take breath)..its appreciation to Verlinde of his dare step of constructing emergent gravity based on dead theories ..we loudly take inspiration from him...!!!!!!!
Relevant answer
Answer
@ Adrian Sfarti ;;
my dear Adrian Sfarti do you have any objection if i comment? arey faltu he constructed his theory on string theory go and read once again empty vessel...
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
35 answers
GTR does not predict a bifurcation in the graviational wave at the chirp. Is there something wrong with GTR
Relevant answer
Answer
Right, as does the Coulomb force (seen by an observer close to the electron) which gives us static electricity, but the wave format only becomes dominant at distance. Try to follow the analogy Andrew, there are differences in the format of the waves (quadrupole versus dipole) but this aspect is comparable.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
3 answers
Where the border in the space strictly separating the expansion of the space from the expansion within the space. 
Relevant answer
Answer
For objects that are close to us, the expansion velocity due to Universal Expansion is negligible, so their Doppler shift directly corresponds to their motion relative to us and our surroundings. For objects at large distances, where the Universal Expansion is the main component of their Doppler shift z, things are far more difficult. There are techniques that provide redshift-independent estimates of distance, but they usually have large error bars, far greater than any normal "real" motion of an object relative to its neighbors. So in most cases involving distant galaxies we probably can't measure the "real" Doppler shift that you are talking about.
There is an exception, however. In rich clusters of galaxies, the individual galaxies may have real motions relative to their neighbors in excess of 1000 km/sec, so that some of the galaxies appear to be receding from us as much as 2000 km/sec faster than others (the difference between those going away from us relative to their neighbors, and those coming toward us relative to their neighbors). I recall seeing a visual representation of the distribution of galaxies in space done about twenty years ago, which had many linear structures pointing directly toward us, as though the galaxies in that region were lined up with our position. What was really happening was that the average position of the linear structures represented the probable location of a cluster of galaxies, and the linear structure was caused by the galaxies moving toward us being interpreted as being closer to us, and the ones moving away from us being interpreted as being further from us. So for a rich cluster of galaxies you can measure the radial motions of the galaxies relative to the cluster as a whole by comparing their recessional velocities to the average recessional velocity of the cluster. That still doesn't tell you their actual motion relative to us, unless the overall motion of the cluster itself can be independently determined; but it does yield something close to what you are looking for.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
55 answers
Professor Michael Longo (University of Michigan in Ann Arbor) and Professor Lior Shamir (Lawrence Technological University) on experimental data have shown that there is an asymmetry between the right- and left - twisted spiral galaxies. Its value is about 7%. In the article:
ROTATING SPACE OF THE UNIVERSE, AS A SOURCE OF DARK ENERGY AND DARK MATTER
it is shown that the source of dark matter can be the kinetic energy of rotation of the space of the observed Universe. At the same time, the contribution of the Carioles force is 6.8%, or about 7%. The high degree of proximity of the value of the asymmetry between the the right- and left - twisted spiral galaxies and the value of the contribution of the Carioles force to the kinetic energy of rotation of the space of the observable Universe is a strong indirect evidence (on experimental data!) that the space of the observed Universe rotates.
Relevant answer
Answer
@Valery Timkov
There is a stronger evidence that all these considerations need revision.  All your thinking is based upon a 4D Spacetime.  
The observation of hyperspherical acoustic waves (waves that have a footprint along the distance dimension) challenging both GR and the Copernican Principle were found in the SDSS BOSS dataset indicating clearly that we live in a 5D spacetime, where all the 4 spatial dimensions are non compact. 
The SN1a survey distances, corrected by an epoch dependent G, indicates that that hyperspherical surface where we exist, is traveling at the speed of light.
You can easily download the SDSS dataset and see that the observations are correct.  I made a video to help setting up the Anaconda environment.
You can also watch the video below containing an alternative model for Cosmogenesis based on the evidence found in both SDSS and SN1a surveys. It clearly shows the effect of many Bangs (in a crescendo) on the initial hyperspherical Universe
It is all there in Black and White (and sometimes in color..:)
#####################################################
Check HU (the Hypergeometrical Universe Theory) view of Cosmogenesis.
The Universe maps associated with this video are derived directly from the SDSS (Sloan Digital Sky Survey) datasets. That is, the existence of acoustic waves along the DISTANCE dimension were there for 10 years and SDSS couldn’t see it because of ideology. They believed and had blind faith, that the Universe is a 4D Spacetime. A 4D Spacetime requires any position to be equivalent to another position.
HU proposes a 5D Spacetime and expects hyperspherical acoustic waves at the beginning of times. Those hyperspherical acoustic waves would take place along the DISTANCE dimension. That is what astronomical observations support. They don’t support General Relativity, Inflation Theory, Dark Energy etc.
Below is the github repository and video to help setting up the python environment:
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
19 answers
Remember E=mc2
Relevant answer
Answer
Thierry is right.
Photons of energy 1.022 MeV or more will convert to pairs of massive electron-positron when grazing a massive particle such as an atomic nucleus.
In 1999, a team led by Kirk McDonald even succeeded in having electron-positron pairs created by colimating two photon beams to a single point in space.
See this paper titled "Positron Production in Multiphoton Light-by-Light Scattering":
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
10 answers
This question makes a new gate to think the relation between results of Last fermat theorem geometrically and its relation with Quantum mechanics , Curvature of Space-time , special and general relativity and other issues in physics and in general about our whole universe.All ideas , opinions , questions , links , papers and work reports will be acknowledged.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello and thanks a lot for your nice comments.
My goal was to find applications of this theorem in physics.
Because , physics and geometry are really closed and connected together.
We will discuss more to find physical investigation and justification of applied mathematics in all branches of physics that is called  computational physics.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
75 answers
We say a finite elastic surface is expanding when points on the surface are moving apart at different times. Therefore a moving object of constant speed will take longer time to traverse between two known points on the surface than an earlier time. We read and fascinated by theories about cosmology and the universe. One of such theories is that the universe has no boundaries and is expanding, sometimes with a constant rate, other times with a faster rate than what we thought. Its expansion is observed from the observation of increased separation between known cosmological objects increases over time. 
Earth and other planets in our galaxy are cosmological objects which should obey the same law and display similar behaviors, that the time these objects take to traverse a cosmological curve on their natural path of either rotation or revolution will be longer than it took them some cosmological time ago, unless the speed of revolution or rotation speed of these objects always change accordingly so that the time length remains the same. Therefore the length of time earth takes to complete a cosmological path of revolution around the sun which we call it one year or 365 days has to change, while the time of rotation may remain the same as it looks the time of rotation is invariant of the expansion of the universe unless earth itself increases in size. My question is : 
Is it observed that the time of revolution for earth increased to be more than 365 days and we have to change what we call one year ? What is really changing and what is not and which behaviors are affected by these changes? Is such a theory justified by empirical and unchanging evidences we encounter?  
I appreciate your ideas. 
Best regards,
Dejenie Alemayehu Lakew
Relevant answer
Answer
The Moon is moving away from the Earth due to the action of the tides, it also slows the rotation of the Earth so that angular momentum is conserved.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
38 answers
The tests of GPS systems and the Hafele and Keating experiments suggest, that an Earth centred position is stationary.
After all we do not alter Earth's clock we alter the satellite clock, there is no reciprocity
The new postulate 1, is that all stable gravitational bodies are stable with regards the back ground of dark energy ( which is how they came to be in a stable orbit), and are stationary observers.
Can we treat this as a new postulate, instead of all observers are equal in STR, all stable gravitational objects are stationary. If not what are the potential objections?
Relevant answer
Answer
Good question. Although this statement does not replace the postulate of the special theory of relativity:
1. The existing quasistationary motion obviously has the nesting of cyclic orbits, respectively, there is no complete equivalence of states of observers tied to arbitrary cycles. They are not invariant.
2. By virtue of 1 (and the fact that the attractor of the entire open dynamical system is divergent, this requires a separate discussion) at every point, that is, for an arbitrary cyclical orbit, there is an uncompensated components (of gravity and not only).
3. By virtue of 2 the positions of any observer in reality do not correspond to the definition of an inertial frame of reference, which is an abstract concept that makes sense only in a truly equilibrium (symmetrical) case (which also applies only to abstract ideal situation, in which, at least, there is no gravity).
It should be noted that in a sufficiently correct theory (which tends to the ToE), indeed, infinite-stable (or asyptotically-stable) cyclical orbits (not only regards to gravity) should not be obtained (possible only in models that take into account no more than locally-equilibrium region or, in other words, a quasi-equilibrium one), this concerns open dynamical systems and Gödel's theorem.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
18 answers
The uncertainty principle is said to forbid the existence of electrons in the nucleus as its constituents. They are formed just prior to or during beta decay.
the energies  which uncertainty principle predicts for an electron is in the range of 10 Mev or more, while the observed maximum beta-energies are about 1.1 tp 1.3 Mev for free neutron decays, and may be ~ 5-6 Mev for some nuclei. The closeness of values renders the argument rather weak, since the electrons will spend some energy in overcoming the attractive coulomb potential of the nucleus and may come out with less energy even if it originally had the energies as required by uncertainty principle.
Relevant answer
Answer
The Heisenberg uncertainty principle based on quantum physics explains a number of facts which could not be explained by classical physics. One of the applications is to prove that electron can not exist inside the nucleus. It is as follows:-
Non-existence of electrons in the nucleus
 we will prove that electrons cannot exist inside the nucleus.
But to prove it, let us assume that electrons exist in the nucleus. As the radius of the nucleus in approximately 10-14 m. If electron is to exist inside the nucleus, then uncertainty in the position of the electron is given by
∆x= 10-14 m
According to uncertainty principle,
∆x∆px =h/2∏
Thus                            ∆px=h/2∏∆x
Or                               ∆px =6.62 x10-34/2 x 3.14 x 10-14
∆px=1.05 x 10-20 kg m/ sec
If this is p the uncertainty in the momentum of electron ,then the momentum of electron should be at least of this order, that is p=1.05*10-20 kg m/sec.
An electron having this much high momentum must have a velocity comparable to the velocity of light. Thus, its energy should be calculated by the following relativistic formula
E=  √ m20 c4 + p2c2
E =  √(9.1*10-31)2 (3*108)4 + (1.05*10-20)2(3*108)2
= √(6707.61*10-30) +(9.92*10-24)
=(0.006707*10-24) +(9.92*10-24)
= √9.9267*10-24
E= 3.15*10-12 J
Or                                  E=3.15*10-12/1.6*10-19 eV
E= 19.6* 106 eV
Or                                  E= 19.6 MeV
Therefore, if the electron exists in the nucleus, it should have an energy of the order of 19.6 MeV. However, it is observed that beta-particles (electrons) ejected from the nucleus during b –decay have energies of approximately 3 Me V, which is quite different from the calculated value of 19.6 MeV. Second reason that electron can not exist inside the nucleus is that experimental results show that no electron or particle in the atom possess energy greater than 4 MeV.
Therefore, it is confirmed that electrons do not exist inside the nucleus.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
22 answers
An article from Nature "Undecidability of the spectral gap" (arXiv:1502.04573 [quant-ph]) shows that finding the spectral gap based on a complete quantum level description of a material is undecidable (in Turing sense). No matter how completely we can analytically describe a material on the microscopic level, we can't predict its macroscopic behavior. The problem has been shown to be uncomputable as no algorithm can determine the spectral gap. Even if there is in a way to make a prediction, we can't determine what prediction is, as for a given a program, there is no method to determine if it halts.
Does this result eliminate once and for all the possibility of a theory of everything based on fundamental physics? Is Quantum physics undecidable? Is this an an epistemic result proving that undecidability places a limit on our knowledge of the world?
Relevant answer
Answer
No, but one may change the research direction for the theory of everything.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
15 answers
There are different views on this issue. Newton believed that the distinguished reference frame was associated with the absolute space and time. When a body is accelerated relative to such a reference frame, the phenomenon of inertia arises as the body’s resistance to the accelerating force. According to Mach, the distinguished reference frame is associated with the distribution of matter in the Universe. According to Einstein, the distinguished reference frame does not exist. In my opinion, the distinguished reference frames can be determined by the reference frames, in which the graviton fluxes at the current moment are spatially isotropic. We can arrive at this conclusion by studying the Le Sage’s theory of gravitation, the extended special theory of relativity, and the Lorentz-invariant theory of gravitation.
Relevant answer
Answer
In mathematics, absolute reference point is given by Brouwer Fixed Point Theorem. It works for compact spaces . For non compact spaces one has to compactify  non compact space first by embedding it in a compact space and then apply Brouwer theorem..
In physics an example of the absolute reference is CMB. See our paper on CMB on this site.  Newton and Einstein are just views from the past. dont be preoccupied with them. Take care.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Fröhlich proposed that when proteins absorb a terahertz photon the added energy forces the oscillating molecules into a single, lowest-frequency mode which supports the Orch-OR theory of consciousness by Hameroff and Penrose. In contrast, other models predict that the protein will quickly dissipate the energy from the photon in the form of heat. This was challenged by Reimers and group in 2009, where the group demonstrated that no amount of mechanical energy can produce a coherent Fröhlich condensate. But in a recent 2015 study, Katona and his colleagues concluded that the long-lasting structural changes that were observed in the helical structure of the lysosome crystal could only be explained by Fröhlich condensation, a quantum-like collective state in which the molecules in a protein behave as one.
Relevant answer
Answer
My take would be that if an area of study is reductionistic, or radically reductionistic, it will not be able to explain or 'find' consciousness because it is an emergent field where the sum of the parts do not equal the whole and cannot be reduced back to their parts. This is why it is hard to imagine classical science as able to find things like ghosts, ESP NDE etc, including consciousness. Therefore, Frohlich is on the right track because he allows for an emergent field. Where is gets complicated, though in that presupposes a giant, universal collective field of fields. 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
18 answers
The Yukawa term involves a product of fermions and scalars and so in particular it contains the Higgs field, meaning that the Yukawa term should also take place beside the usual quadratic and quartic terms in the full Higgs potential; and thus it should contribute to shift the minimum of the full potential, affecting the vacuum that gives symmetry breaking: but then why is it never considered?
Relevant answer
Answer
Luca, yes! In near-equilibrium situations, like people typically assume for the period of electroweak symmetry breaking phase transition (EWPT) in the early universe, the fermionic mean field contribution is included in the finite temperature effective potential of the Higgs field. This happens automatically when using the finite temperature or "Matsubara" formalism of quantum field theory -- it does not have to be added by hand.
You can find an example of this treatment in any review of electroweak baryogenesis (where understanding the dynamics of the EWPT is crucial), such as e.g. https://arxiv.org/abs/1206.2942. There are also textbook treatments of the general formalism, one standard being "Finite-Temperature Field Theory Principles and Applications" by Kapusta and Gale.
Now, as for the validity of the equilibrium effective potential in a non-equilibrium situation like the EWPT... that is still an open question as far as I am concerned. It probably depends on the details of the particle physics model.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
12 answers
*According to Albert Einstein:
  1.  Speed of light  is constant  for all inertial  reference system. 
  2.  laws of physics same for all  inertial reference system.
Therefor we have  most profound and elegant formulation  to space and time!
*According to quantum physics: There are  five  wage  postulates . One of the  postulate called  ,Pauli exclusive principle  lead to  conclude that  state of spine of electron  must be simultaneously  synchronized (instantaneously communicate each other !.In deed  have  no communication time  delay for communication !
My question is : about the communication   between each  electron s   ;
  1. Brake  speed of light? 
  2. Mathematical axioms of quantum mechanics  need  kind of  a artificial  abstraction  like  spooky action at distance to  overcome it  weakness?
Relevant answer
Answer
 Dear
There are, in fact, several ways to travel faster than light:
1. The Big Bang itself expanded much faster than the speed of light. But this only means that "nothing can go faster than light." Since nothing is just empty space or vacuum, it can expand faster than light speed since no material object is breaking the light barrier. Therefore, empty space can certainly expand faster than light.
2. If you wave a flashlight across the night sky, then, in principle, its image can travel faster than light speed (since the beam of light is going from one part of the Universe to another part on the opposite side, which is, in principle, many light years away). The problem here is that no material object is actually moving faster than light. (Imagine that you are surrounded by a giant sphere one light year across. The image from the light beam will eventually hit the sphere one year later. This image that hits the sphere then races across the entire sphere within a matter of seconds, although the sphere is one light year across.) Just the image of the beam as it races across the night sky is moving faster than light, but there is no message, no net information, no material object  that actually moves along this image.
3. Quantum entanglement moves faster than light. If I have two electrons close together, they can vibrate in unison, according to the quantum theory. If I then separate them, an invisible umbilical cord emerges which connects the two electrons, even though they may be separated by many light years. If I jiggle one electron, the other electron "senses" this vibration instantly, faster than the speed of light. Einstein thought that this therefore disproved the quantum theory, since nothing can go faster than light.
But actually this experiment (the EPR experiment) has been done many times, and each time Einstein was wrong. Information does go faster than light, but Einstein has the last laugh. This is because the information that breaks the light barrier is random, and hence useless. (For example, let's say a friend always wears one red sock and one green sock. You don't know which leg wears which sock. If you suddenly see that one foot has a red sock, then you know instantly, faster than the speed of light, that the other sock is green. But this information is useless. You cannot send Morse code or usable information via red and green socks.)
4. Negative matter. The most credible way of sending signals faster than light is via negative matter. You can do this either by:
a) compressing the space in front of your and expanding the space behind you, so that you surf on a tidal wave of warped space. You can calculate that this tidal wave travels faster than light if driven by negative matter (an exotic form of matter which has never been seen.)
b) using a wormhole, which is a portal or shortcut through space-time, like the Looking Glass of Alice.
In summary, the only viable way of breaking the light barrier may be through General Relativity and the warping of space time. However, it is not known if negative matter exists, and whether the wormhole will be stable. To solve the question of stability, you need a fully quantum theory of gravity, and the only such theory which can unite gravity with the quantum theory is string theory (which is what I do for a living). Sadly, the theory is so complex that no has been able to fully solve it and give a definitive anwer to all these questions. Maybe someone reading this blog will be inspired to sovle string theory and answer the question whether we can truly break the light barrier.
regards
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
12 answers
Timothy Boyer had also asked similar question and substantially published papers explaining quantum results without quantum hypothesis. I agree with Boyer but he did not actually derive the quantum of action i.e.h or h divided by 2 pi. Although seems doubtful even Quantum cosmology has an expression for action. Doubtful, because this action can also be interpreted as time dependent. So is Planck's constant invariable? 
Relevant answer
Answer
Thierry, I do not have a definite answer to your question. The full solution for the energy emitted to a cycle of radiation with wavelength λ by Hertzian dipole of length Z is
E(λ)=N2 (Z/ λ)2A 2π3e2μ0 c f
where N is the number of electrons oscillating in the dipole, e is the unit charge, and μ0 the vacuum permeability. A is the geometrical factor which for a standard dipole in a space direction is A=2/3. In principle, a dipole in the 4th dimension is isotropic, which meant geometrical factor A=1, instead of A=1.1049, which matches the equation to Planck's equation. The deviation from 1 may be associated to the “effective length” Zeff=1.0511 (=SQRT(1.1049)) of a dipole in the fourth dimension (a point source). Such a solution is discussed on page 165 in http://physicsfoundations.org/data/documents/The_Dynamic_Universe_e-book.pdf .
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
40 answers
Dark energy is believed to be an invisible force that behaves contrary to what gravity does, to keep matters to go apart in a certain rate than to attract to each other. We can see that by simply observing the separation of galactic objects increases as time pass by. 
Is k is the particular parameter that enables the Sobolev space or the generalized Hilbert space W^{k,2}(Ω) to expand,  i.e, k is the dark energy,  where  k∈ℕ∪{0}.
Relevant answer
Answer
Oh Dejenie,
your last k+1 is certainly a mistake and should be replaced by k. The answer to your question is that  adding positive numbers to a positive number a  increases a. Deep wisdom ?
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
12 answers
On the Wikipedia page about the principle of equivalence, it is written:
<< Einstein combined (postulated) the equivalence principle with special relativity to predict that clocks run at different rates in a gravitational potential, and light rays bend in a gravitational field, even before he developed the concept of curved spacetime. >>
In a space of Minkowski, we know how to express that a trajectory is or is not a straight line. To do this it is enough to use the elements of the formalism.
But when an elevator (no matter it is very small) is accelerated compared to a Minkowski space, what are the mathematics that are used to state that, according to an experimenter inside the elevator, a trajectory is or is not a straight line?
Because it is taught that in rigorous mathematics of general relativity (which studies the accelerated motion), the expression "being in motion relative to a particular experimenter" is not part of the authorized vocabulary, for what exact size of the elevator the experimenter inside can consider he is in a portion of a Minkowski space?
When we imagine that any transformation defined from a small portion of a Minkowski space, which leaves invariant the speed of a light beam on its path, is inevitably a limitation of the group of Poincaré to the portion in question, the mind is forced to improvise particular objects in order to interpret reality and go beyond special relativity.
But when we establish that the transformations which are defined from a small portion of a Minkowski space, and which leave invariant the speed of a beam of light on its trajectory, are not limited to the restrictions of the Poincaré group and reveal solutions which are quantified in a certain sense, these solutions being susceptible to describe an accelerated motion, a question arises insistently :
In the Einstein's accelerated elevator with transparent walls, would it be possible that the experimenter inside notices that the speed of a beam of light is always constant and equal to the invariant of the restricted relativity ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Actually it isn't the equivalence principle-it's the mathematical statement that it's possible to choose Minkowski coordinates at any one spacetime point of the manifold.  The equivalence principle then implies that the curvature effects between different spacetime points are equivalent to the effects of acceleration, since the spacetime is assumed to be described only by the metric. 
So the exact size is zero, if the manifold is curved. 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
24 answers
If the photon had mass, then the Faraday's and Ampere equations would pick up an additional term related to the mass of the photon. This term will give rise to the Hall effect exhibited by semiconductors when a magnetic field is applied on. The mass of the photon will accordingly equal to m=(I hbar/Qc^2), where I is the current passing on the sample, Q is the total charge enclosed by the sample, and hbar is the Planck's constant divided by 2pi. Any challenges to measure this?
This can be transformed into a relation m=hbar v/(Wc^2), where v is the electron drift velocity and W is the width of the sample.
Relevant answer
Answer
   Dear Ahmed,
   I strongly agree with your last sentence" go ahead to the forward". And even I would add that it is full of value that there are people able to face difficult new points of views within so stablished and tested theories as classical electrodynamics. My best wishes for Arbab and my remarks only try to help in thinking on weak points of his equations.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
4 answers
In QFT we calculate quantities that ultimately depend on the way we normalize spinors; but because in perturbation theories spinor propagators are free then their normalization can be chosen arbitrarily: so in perturbative QFT computations give results that depend on arbitrary normalization. It is custom to choose the spinor square scalar equal to 2m and this gives the correct results; but for instance in condensed state physics the normalization would be to choose it equal to the number of particles, which in QFT would result in choosing it equal to 1 and this would be grossly out of scale. So given that 2m seems correct but not the only possibility, is there a way in which such a normalization could be justified a priori?
Relevant answer
Answer
oh, nice, thanks... on the other hand, how can the results be independent on the choice? The Lagrangian density is proportional to the spinor squared and to get the results we integrate over the volume but not divide by the spinor squared: so the spinor squared must still be present and that is normalization-dependent, right? Can you elaborate on this, please?
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
31 answers
As the Sun ages, its total output rises. To maintain a constant energy input to the Earth, it will eventually become necessary to slowly increase Earth's mean orbital radius if it is to stay habitable. While engineering this is shift is difficult but possible, a complication is that the Earth is in 8:13 resonance with Venus. Is there any (free) tool available that could determine the stability of the planetary orbital configuration as a function of a varying Earth orbital radius?
Relevant answer
Answer
Here is  a link to the researcher I mentioned, Jack Wisdom.  He was a leader in this field in the 90s, although I am sure you can find more recent work.
My personal opinion is that the global stability of the solar system is not predictable in the absolute sense but it can be bounded with some uncertainty.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
2 answers
Hi everybody. I would like to plot this function in phase space. 
W(x,px,y,py )=ⅇ-(x^2+px ^2 )-(y^2+py^2 ) *LaguerreL[1/2(-1+n), 2(x^2+px^2)] * LaguerreL[1/2(-1+n),2(y^2+py^2 )]
Relevant answer
Answer
To get started, look at this Mathematica program
x^2+px^2-> x^2, y^2+py^2-> y^2
W[x_, y_, n_] :=
Exp[x^2 - y^2]*LaguerreL[1/2 (-1 + n), 2 x^2]*LaguerreL[1/2 (-1 + n), 2 y^2]
Plot3D[W[x, y, 7], {x, 0, 1}, {y, 0, 1}, PlotRange -> All]
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
12 answers
Hello, I have one simple question about the double split experiment.
Is the interpretation for single photon interference the same with single electron interference, the quantum mechanics?
There's some other explanation that the photon can travel through natural wormholes.
I'm quite confusing about this.
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
Why not? 
obviously, matter wave interferometry with larger objects has remained experimentally challenging, despite the development of powerful atom interferometric techniques for experiments in fundamental quantum mechanics.
You mentioned C60:
This molecule is the most massive and complex object in which wave behavior has been observed. Of particular interest is the fact that C60 is almost a classical body, because of its many excited internal degrees of freedom and their possible couplings to the environment.
Such couplings are essential for the appearance of decoherence , suggesting that interference experiments with large molecules should facilitate detailed studies of this process.
Markus Arndt, and his coworkers from Institut für Experimentalphysik, Universität Wien, Boltzmanngasse 5,A-1090 Wien, Austria have experimented such as system which you mentioned
Interference pattern produced by C60 molecules has been shown by them  in a experimental recording and fit using Kirchhoff diffraction theory .
In their experiment, the de Broglie wavelength of the interfering fullerenes is already smaller than their diameter by a factor of almost 400. It would certainly be interesting to investigate the interference of objects the size of which is equal to or even bigger than the diffracting structure. Methods analogous to those used for their work, probably extended to the use of optical diffraction structures, could also be applied to study quantum interference of even larger macro-molecules
For the second section of your question "What happened to its electrons, neutrons and protons when it goes through both two slits?", I have some idea and I would like to discuses  more about it.
.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
9 answers
Is there a quantum origin of time asymmetry as manifested in thermodynamics?
Relevant answer
Answer
It doesn't. Quantum entanglement doesn't have anything to do with any such asymmetry. It simply describes the fact that probability distributions don't factorize in non-relativistic quantum mechanics. Since they don't factorize, integrating out degrees of freedom leads to a non-local description for the degrees of freedom that haven't been integrated out. 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
4 answers
How did the experimentalists of CERN provided us with the decay width to mass ratio of the 750 GeV resonance? As far as the observation is concerned they only saw an excess in number of events in two particular bins of diphoton invariant mass. Have they fitted some curve corresponding to standard resonance shape to it? It was reported in the paper by ATLAS that best fit was obtained for : width/mass = 0.06. But the argument in favor of narrow width is also seen in literature as well. So, what is the matter with the width?   
Relevant answer
Answer
There are two independent issues which are hidden in this question.
  1. Separating signal from SM background and finding the excess number of events in a given channel, such as di-photon, two jets+two leptons and so on....
  2. Interpretation of the excess number of events in the context of a specific model.
In the second part one considers a model beyond SM such as left-right symmetry. Then one calculates what should be the excess number in left-right symmetric (LR) model. If the observed excess agrees with the prediction of left-right symmetry then one concludes that this model is a promising candidate of physics beyond SM.
In practice, the LR model has many parameters. One is the mas of the right handed gauge boson, then another parameter is the ratio gL/gR, the third is the VEV vR which breaks right handed gauge symmetry and so on. One varies these parameters and tries to get a range of parameters which will explain the excess number of events.
you can see our paper which is published in JHEP, e-Print: arXiv:1509.03232
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
234 answers
The Schrodinger experiment (intended to illustrate what he thought was the implausibility of a half-live half-dead cat state function, but now taken seriously by many) is modified to examine the question of whether physical processes collapse the wave function, or whether consciousness is required as I understand von Neumann suspected.
The AI (artificial intelligence) is not assumed to be conscious, just a sophisticated but deterministic program, or expert system, with motors attached robot-like. We assume from quantum mechanics calculations that the room contains a state function which is a 50-50 live-cat, dead-cat. When we open the room we expect to find one of the following:
  • Live cat, with AI having recorded an observation of opening the smaller box and finding a live cat.
  • Dead cat, with AI having recorded an observation of opening the smaller box and finding a dead cat.
There is nothing to collapse the wavefunction until you and I open the box, according to von Neumann. As I understand him. The AI is a physical process, just like the cat's internal biological processes are physical, and if the cat itself doesn't collapse the wave function, neither can the AI.
However, notice that the AI has the same subjective experiences that we do. There is no cross-state mixing between the AI and the cat. The AI which found the live cat never mixes with the dead cat state, and vice versa.
There, in an interview with the AI, it will insist that it never found any contradiction to the notion that it collapsed the wave function, even though our mathematics informs us otherwise.
Relevant answer
Answer
Charles Francis,
I am sorry for any provocative or challenging statements – or perhaps not! My experience is that being provocative (within limits of course) often brings out engaged and honest responses that could provide a deeper understanding even if not ending in full agreement.
I have always been careful to define in each case what I mean with quantum, classical, frequentist, Bayesian etc. probability before concluding anything while you always refer to probability as a god-given concept always applicable.
At the end of the day, we could reduce measured results indefinitely perfecting our subjective information of the experiment using whatever statistics available, but still not knowing, when sending the next silver atom through the S-G apparatus, on which sceen the atom will be collected.
QM is an axiomatic deductive theory that has a unique mathematical formulation. One of the axioms concerns the wavefunction and defines a probability concept that is unlike any classical probability version.
The physical interpretation is a separate process from the mathematical formulation. In e.g. the Bohr interpretation the experimental apparatus is classical and the task is to equate a quantum measurement with classical end results, after the experiment is finished and documented.
The novel development of quantum cryptology, quantum computing, interferometry, teleportation etc. show that the notion of measurement evolves in subtle but fundamental ways imparting exacting references to concepts like properties carried by quantum particles, the meaning of localization, or the violation of Bell’s inequality, and the fundamental assumption of realism, i.e. can reality and information be separated from each other.
I agree with Robert – it is time to return to the thread.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
2 answers
In loop quantum gravity the eigenvalues of volume operator are discrete. Is it correct to conclude that , for fermions, the density of particle number is always finite? (according to the Pauli exclusion principle)
Relevant answer
Answer
The fact that the volume operator has discrete spectrum, doesn't imply that its excitations can be, necessarily, identified with fermions (or bosons) at all-this property of the spectrum doesn't determine their statistics. Nor does this property of the spectrum of this operator have, as such, anything to do with the density of the excitations of any other operator. The question attempts to relate two issues that don't have anything to do with each other. 
That's why attempting to postulate any such relation, absent any further information, doesn't make sense.
(Of course, for fermions-assuming they can be defined-to condense, an additional, attractive, interaction is necessary. The caveat is that to speak meaningfully of fermions, or bosons, at all, a spin-statistics relation is required, which isn't, always, available: the spin-statistics theorem has assumptions: http://ejde.math.txstate.edu/conf-proc/04/w1/wightman.pdf
It's, of course, a triviality that, in the presence of a cutoff, the number and the density of any quantity, will be finite. The non-trivial statement is whether, for any given quantity,  a limit exists, that's independent of how the cutoff is defined and  how it is removed. 
The reason the volume operator has a discrete spectrum is because  the group, namely SU(2), from whose generators it's constructed, is compact. So any statement that this fact is relevant for the description of quantum effects requires further elaboration. If it would take values in the algebra, for instance, some more work would have been required: the algebra is a non-compact manifold. 
That all operators, whose domain is a compact manifold, have discrete spectrum, doesn't have anything to do with any quantization issue-but is a (mathematical) statement, that's independent of Planck's constant. 
Conversely, that, under certain assumptions, there do exist operators, with continuum spectrum, whose domain is a non-compact manifold, that do describe quantum effects, i.e. that depend non-trivially on Planck's constant, is, also, true. 
So a discrete spectrum doesn't, necessarily, imply the relevance of quantum effects, nor does a continuous spectrum imply their irrelevance. 
A non-trivial problem is to compute the degeneracy of the corresponding spectra-especially when the spectrum is continuous-and show that it is a well-defined quantity, i.e. doesn't depend on the cutoff procedure used to define it in the first place-and can be used for well-defined calculations. For the degeneracy is a completely independent property of the spectrum.
Curiously, these facts aren't  as well-known as might be expected. 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
10 answers
Atom optics is typically done in the last years with gratings of light. These gratings successfully implement mirrors and beam-splitters. Two counter-propagating laser beams cross one another, and in the crossing region there appear fringes - see figure.
For the case when the beams have the same wavelength it is no problem to calculate the grating constant, it is equal to 1/(2k cosθ), where θ is half the angle between the directions of propagation of the two beams.
However, recently appeared in the literature "moving gratings". That means, the two laser beams differ slightly in wavelength. Such an arrangement is said to produce the effect of a moving grating.
How to calculate the grating constant of this moving lattice, and with which velocity does it move with respect to the static emitting lasers?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear @Remi,
you are very kind. I think that your simple calculus is very close to the answer. What still seems to me incomplete in the calculus, is that a pattern of fringes, if static, should have the expression
(1) cos(kx) cos(ωt),
i.e. all the minima (maxima) are reached at the same time. Of course, in a running lattice the minima (maxima) should move with a given velocity, but still they should appear reached at the same time.
So, I'll try to see if I can get this effect starting from your formulas. Let me refine them a bit. I'll denote
(2) = (k1 + k2)/2 and δk = (k1 - k2)/2,
ω̅ = (ω1 + ω2)/2 and δω = (ω1 - ω2)/2.
So, we have
(4) cos(k2x - ω2t) + cos(k1x - ω1t) = 2cos( x - ω̅ t) cos(δkx - δωt)
If δk << k̅  and the distances x are so that δkx << k̅ x and also δkx << δωt , then we can write
(5) cos(k̅ x - ω̅ t) cos(δkx - δωt) ≈ cos(k̅ x - ω̅ t) cos(δωt)
So, it seems that we got an acceptable answer. Though, something seems to me strange, this running lattice runs with the light velocity, because ω̅ /k̅ = c. I had the impression that such lattices run with much slower velocities. But, it may be that my impression was wrong. 
With many thanks Remi, and kind regards!
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
45 answers
Relevant answer
Answer
The big bang in classical general relativity involves a space-time singularity, a point of zero volume, infinite density, and infinite space-time curvature.  This involves the interesting topic of how to handle infinite values in physical theories as well as the limits of applicability of theories.
In most areas of physics the appearance of a singularity or an infinite value of an experimentally measurable physical quantity can be taken a a sign that we have reached the limits of applicability of the theory. One example is the ultraviolet catastrophe where applying equipartition of energy to the normal modes of the electromagnetic field emitted by a blackbody (a perfect absorber and emitter of radiation) in thermal equilibrium results in an infinite amount of energy at short wavelengths (so we should be blasted by an infinite amount of energy while sitting in front of our fireplace). This was solved by Planck with quantization of the emission and absorption of electromagnetic energy.
In some cases an infinite value is considered "benign" and removed by a procedure such as renormalization or regularization. The value of the "bare" charge of an electron in QED (quantum electrodynamics) is infinite but this is not the value which results from a laboratory measurement of the charge. This apparent infinity is removed by renormalization which takes virtual higher order effects into account to produce a finite value corresponding to what is actually measured.
General relativity has sometimes been described as the only area of physics that takes its singularities seriously or literally, whether it is the initial singularity at the big bang or the singularity at the center of a black hole.  There are even singularity theorems which specify the conditions under which singularities occur. This takes place in a classical space-time with no quantum gravitational effects. Once again the occurrence of a singularity is really a sign that our theory is breaking down and that a new theory, in this case a theory of quantum gravity, is required. It is generally believed that this occurs at a finite but very small scale which for distance is referred to as the Planck length, approximately 10^-33 cm, beyond which classical general relativity no longer applies (Technically it is the space time curvature which is important here. When the curvature is of the order of one over the square of the Planck length then quantum gravitation effects are expected to be important). This length scale is extremely small and is approximately 10^-20 times the diameter of a proton.
Thus while extrapolating backwards in standard cosmology appears to lead to a singularity of zero volume, infinite density and infinite space-time curvature, classical general relativity is no longer applicable at a stage before the singularity occurs when all relevant quantities are still finite. Until a full theory of quantum gravity is available we can only make limited and speculative statements about what may happen at smaller scales (greater space-time curvatures). 
As a final note, for completeness I should point out that there exist alternate theories of gravitation and alternate cosmologies that find various ways to get around this problem. Three examples are John Moffat's MOG or modified gravity, Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology and QSSC or Quasi-Steady State Cosmology of Hoyle, Burbidge and Narlikar. In general there are far fewer people working on these theories compared to standard general relativity and cosmology and thus far fewer resulting publications. It should also be pointed out that these alternative theories are generally not accepted by the (vast) majority of relativists and cosmologists.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
4 answers
As a theoretical cosmologist, spectral index, running spectral index and scalar to tensor ratio are some of the things one can easily calculate for the model we devise. But it comes very handy to plot them on top of the distribution that is usually obtained by running CosmoMC on Planck data. Can someone describe how these plots are obtained and what is quickest way to reproduce the such as fig.9 in the link attached, without divulging oneself into the details of Planck data analysis. 
Relevant answer
Answer
there is some programs allow you to take the numerical values  from the scientific graphs like  r and n_s in planck results  , then you can  re-produce this contours by matlab or any other program, see for example "dagra" , it's simple and good programm I'll add the link of home page of the program
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
10 answers
The Harmonic coordinates, often used by Vladimir Fock when treating GRT, derive from the D'Alembertian,  the Laplacian  in the Minkowski space. The wave equation for the electromagnetic field in vacuum is Dalembertian(Aμ)=0
where Aμ is the electromagnetic four-potential (Vector + scalar potentials).
Should GR, in order to be in agreement with EM, use this kind of coordinates?
Since the 3D graphics in order to operate the motion of 3D objects uses such coordinates transformations and these are very successful in modelling the proper deformation  of solid figures in motion, what is the implication and deep meaning of these coordinates?
Relevant answer
Answer
The harmonic coordinate condition is one of several coordinate conditions in general relativity, which make it possible to solve the Einstein field equations. A coordinate system is said to satisfy the harmonic coordinate condition if each of the coordinate functions xα (regarded as scalar fields) satisfies d'Alembert's equation. The parallel notion of a harmonic coordinate system in Riemannian geometry is a coordinate system whose coordinate functions satisfy Laplace's equation. Since d'Alembert's equation is the generalization of Laplace's equation to space-time, its solutions are also called "harmonic".
The laws of physics can be expressed in a generally invariant form. In other words, the real world does not care about our coordinate systems. However, for us to be able to solve the equations, we must fix upon a particular coordinate system. A coordinate condition selects one (or a smaller set of) such coordinate system(s). The Cartesian coordinates used in special relativity satisfy d'Alembert's equation, so a harmonic coordinate system is the closest approximation available in general relativity to an inertial frame of reference in special relativity.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
7 answers
Gravitational wave has now becomes a reality. It is analogous to the electromagnetic wave that is emitted by an accelerating charged object. What type of wave is it? A tensor, a vector or a scalar wave? With what speed does it travels? It composes of what fields and their relation to each other? How a tensor wave travels? Does it arise from dipole or quadruple radiation? What is its frequency range? Does it interfere with light? Any other physical properties does it carry?
Relevant answer
Answer
@Youssef Khmou
The frequencies detected by LIGO from merger of two black holes swept upward in frequencies from 35 to 250 Hz. So it looks like wideband. According to Thome and Kip S. (Gravitational waves, Cornell University Library, 1995), gravitational waves are expected to have frequencies between 10^(-16) Hz and 10^4 Hz
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
7 answers
Can we apply extreme conditions in order to create an artificial nucleus just made out of neutrons?
Relevant answer
Answer
I cannot answer, but this reminds me of a very interesting and animated discussion about the existence of neutron-neutron bound states. From what I remember it seems that this is not forbidden in principle, but it has never been observed. See link below for more clues.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
98 answers
Different physicists disagree on whether there is such a thing as the wave function of the universe.
- In favor of its existence is the fact that, in the Big Bang picture, all particles (and hence downstream objects) were correlated at the inception of the Universe, and a correlation that has existed at some point in the past ever so loosely continues thereafter since full decoherence never truly sets in. A number of pictures  - Ghirardi-Rimini-Weber, Bohm, even Hugh Everett, et al., - require the existence of the wave function of the universe, denoted Ψ(U).
- Two main categories of objections however belie its existence.
The first category ultimately boils down to a not very solid rejection of non-separability, i.e. to an argument that a full separation between an observer and an observed must always be upheld if any observation or measure is to be objectively valid, and a wave function ascertainable.
The second argument is more compelling, and says that if Ψ exists, then Ψ(U)=Ψ(Ψ,U) in a closed, self-referential loop. Ψ has thereby become an non-observable, unknowable, and as such better relegated to the realm of metaphysics than physics.
 
What say you?
Relevant answer
Answer
The question puts me in the situation to answer two times yes - where both answers are based on reasons that belong much more to those who reject this theory as to them accepting it.
1. I am much more a convinced fan of the determinist views of physics as of the non-determinist theories. The paradox is that as a determinist I agree more with the existence of a wave function of the universe as with its non-existence. A general coherence, or what remained, matches better with my intuition of strict and many-dimensional chain of causalities.
2. I cannot accept the big-bang  as possible begin of the whole universe. I accept it just as one accepts the hypothesis of a local event that determines all the visible universe and maybe much more, but just a small neighborhood of us relatively to the universe. Seen like this, the big bang is also a theory with local applicability, as all other physical theories before. But exactly because of its locality, I have a reason less to deny the existence of the universal wave function, although the circularity Ψ(U)=Ψ(Ψ,U) would locally persist!
Isn't this a funny situation?
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
9 answers
Poincare and Einstein
Relevant answer
Answer
Ricci flow is:
μ ∂Gμν/∂μ=α’ Rμν
This equation describes how the metric changes with energy scale. Idea of Ricci flow was used by Perelman to prove Poncare conjecture. See http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307245, and references in this paper.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
7 answers
Cosmic inflation is usually considered to have ended at about 10^-37 seconds after initiation of the big-bang. Given this, what is the meaning of the term "eternal inflation"?
Relevant answer
Answer
Going back to the original question of this thread,, I think it has been answered by the various quotations of the work of Guth, Steinhardt, and Linde, although they don't agree among themselves. One of them may be right, I have no better answers.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
36 answers
We know that Classical Mechanics can be shown as special and approximated case of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.
Is the case similar here?
Relevant answer
Answer
No. We do not have even a consistent theory for quantum gravity(and it seems probable that Einstein's theory cannot be quantized at all)
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
3 answers
Researchers in the fields of cosmology and gravitation, which are also expert at high energy physics .
Relevant answer
Answer
If I understand the question (assuming 4D and initial condition usually consider for ordinary inflation), you are describing a scalar-tensor theory. These theories can be mapped to f(R)-models. If you start from an f(R), through a conformal transformation you just obtain a scalar degree of freedom coupled with the metric as in scalar-tensor models. Starobinsky model is nothing but a f(R)=R+R^{2}, inflaton is just the extra scalar degree of freedom propagating in this model. You can also obtain the precise potential in this case.  
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
126 answers
While scientific cosmology rarely occurs in the work Karl Popper, nevertheless it is a subject that interested him. The problem now is whether falsifiability criterion can be used for cosmology theories.
For instance, there are certain issues in cosmology which have never been refuted, but instead the same methods are used over and over despite their lack of observational support, for instance mutliverse idea (often used in string theory) and also Wheeler DeWitt equation (often used in quantum cosmology).
So do you think that Popperian falsifiability can be applied to cosmology science too? Your comments are welcome.
Relevant answer
Answer
Clifford,
Apparently, your answer to my question is negative, namely, Poppers falsifiability is useless in exact sciences.  I fully concur with this conclusion if: 1) falsifying a theory is equivalent to refuting it, and 2) a refuted theory must be taken out of circulation.  Popper stated the first, while the second appears to be a generally accepted implication. If the latter is not true, what is the purpose of applying falsifiability to physics? However, if the implication is correct, it contradicts the whole history of physics, which shows that nothing dramatic happened to a theory which did not agree with a certain experiment.   Physicists continued using it – even unmodified - in the areas (or under conditions) where such disagreements do not occur. And frequently they were capable of modifying the theory so as to explain not only the experiment in question but a range of other phenomena.
Apparently, Popper reasoned as follows: AFTER a new theory is published, someone offers a new experiments which the theory cannot explain, and therefore it is refuted.  In reality, many authors were aware of such exceptions even BEFORE publishing their theories.  Nonetheless, they proceeded with their publications, because they believed that a theory which explained even a few phenomena has a right to exist.  They hoped that future developments will extend the range of applications of their theories. 
Here is an example.  Thomas Young’s 1801 paper had a very general title “On the Theory of Light and Colours”.  Yet, he did not plan to explain in that paper ALL phenomena of light and colors.  In fact, he applied then his theory only to 3 phenomena of colors, namely, those produced by parallel scratches on glass, by thin films, and by thick glass plates imperfectly polished.  In subsequent papers he extended his theory to a few more phenomena, then Fresnel and Arago added some more, even without modifying the theory.
One can multiply such examples at will, and the general conclusion will be that the concept of falsifiability had been useless in the older physics.  Incidentally, originally Popper introduced the concept to distinguish “scientific” theories from “non-scientific” ones, such as astrology or Marxist theory of history, which is not the same as separating “true” physical theories from the “false” ones.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
2 answers
There are AIs using time-domain echo grating for g measurements, so I was wondering if anyone happens to know if there is any information on frequency domain echo grating AIs on g measurements. Is it even possible? Any published articles would be helpful.
Relevant answer
Answer
Following references may be useful.
M. Kasevich and S. Chu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 181 (1991)
H. M ̈uller, S. Chiow, S. Herrmann, S. Chu, and K. Chung, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 031101 (2008)
A. Peters, K. Y. Chung, and S. Chu, Nature, 400, 849 (1999).
Cold atom interferometers (AIs) are sensitive to gravitational acceleration, g. This fact is used to measure g precisely.
Please visit the following link
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
13 answers
In most of the inflationary models, or quintessence models, a scalar field has been used to describe the dynamics. Why is this? I know that some models use vector fields, but if you want to use scalars, what are the arguments behind using it?
Relevant answer
Answer
Matts ~
I don't quite understand "scalar fields are constant in space". The wave equation of a scalar field (the Klein-Gordan equation) doesn't have a "constant" solution.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
96 answers
Does it imply that if the theory did not allow calculating values of the given quantity in reasonable time, then this theoretical quantity would not have a counterpart in physical reality? Particularly, does this imply that the wave functions of the Universe do not correspond to any element of physical reality, inasmuch as they cannot be calculated in any reasonable time? Furthermore, if the ‘computational amendment’ (mentioned in the paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1410.3664v1) to the EPR definition of an element of physical reality is important and physically meaningful, should we then exclude infeasible, i.e., practically useless, solutions from all the equations of physical theories?
Relevant answer
Answer
Charles, no, it is done for momentum meausurement, I have given the formulas, of course, one needs the cofiguration of the measurement device as well as the full wave function for this too, and, again, this is not speculation but the prescription, the necessary consequence of the dBB equations, and this is well-known since Bohm's paper. Because this extension from position measurement to all other quantum measurements was the main new result of Bohm's paper in comparison with de Broglies original theory. 
Only repetition of already rejected arguments, so it seems time to finish this discussion. Its already clear that you have no counterarguments against the points I have made, but are unwilling to accept anything.  Bye. 
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
5 answers
Can we get any help of dark energy momentum tensor in f(r,t) theory?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank  You So much...for the valuable answers!!
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
1 answer
Cosmological interactions are often related to the energy density of the interacting system or to their time derivatives. Is it possible to relate the interaction between spins of a fluid with its energy density? Or with an arbitrary function of its time derivatives?
In other words, can a cosmological interaction  be derived from the interaction between spins of a cosmological fluid ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks Farid.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
6 answers
A quantum gravity theory based on the concept that a unified field of consciousness (ufc) permeates the entire creation, provides solutions to many of the puzzles. The biggest of them is the origin of energy. UFC is a perfectly motionless field which does not interact with energy. When ufc becomes active, it gives out discrete quanta of life which physicists call energy. The process is reversible. Neither ufc nor energy can ever be destroyed. More details on ufc in the article at following link.
Relevant answer
Answer
In my way of thinking, human will is communicated through the medium of thought or idea which I believe is a subtle particle wave like electromagnetic wave not accessible to physics. Energy is just another name for oscillations (or frequency). This can be clearly seen in Max Planck's quantum hypothesis, E = hf. Similarly time is also just another name for inverse of frequency, T = 1/f. So energy is a very clear concept.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
14 answers
I am not an expert at all in cosmology, and I was always puzzled by the following question. To my knowledge, everything started from a singularity (Big-Bang), then inflation followed, then space continued to expand. However, after the end of inflation, it is now believed the whole universe was of the scale of centi-meters (still infinitely large than a single point). The question I have is this: suppose at the end of the inflationary period (i.e. ~10^-32s after Big-Bang), one shines a photon. What will happen with it? Will it encounter a "boundary" of space? Or is the space still expanding faster than the speed of light and the question is meaningless? And, finally, can we say that the universe itself had a finite volume?
Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Vlad, your question is interesting, although can be analysed further. I will not give a direct answer, but I will try to help you find it by yourself. Let's start:
"To my knowledge, everything started...", be careful: what is time? see my suggestion here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263104630 and you will realize that such a formulation is meaningless
"...then inflation followed, then space continued to expand": for inflation and cosmology see more here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264537258 , you will find that it is not necessary to create space (expansion) at all and inflation is incompatible with the postulate that speed of light=upper limit.
My brief opinion is that most of the questions that involve a concept of point singularity universe creation are just a measure of our ignorance.
If you want a precise answer, no expansion took place at all, since it is more reasonable to accept the existence of infinite 'local universes (with unknown cardinality and unknown creation process...)
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
17 answers
Is it, in principle, possible that the redshift observed by Hubble can be explained by compton scattering of light on some particles like dark matter, neutrinos, etc?
This would also mean that, if a light emitting object is far away, it's light will be shifted more than the light of a close object, since more particles are in the way.
I once read an article proposing this mechanism, but I don't remember the source. Is this a widely known problem? Where can I read more about it? Are there other possible explanations of the redshift besides the expansion of the universe?
Relevant answer
Answer
Lobachevskian (hyperbolic) geometry is known since circa 150 years.E.g. Einsteins's Special Relativity is in fact physical  interpretation of  Lobachaevskian geometry. Ignorance of hyperbolic geometry is widespread among physicists and astronomers and is a source of several misconceptions including originn of the redshift .and CMB.
Euclidaen geometry is a zero curvature limit of Lobachevskian geometry. So better take any book on the subject of hyperbolic geometry and please do not tell such a  BS which is quite ridiculous. to read and disqualify you as a scientist. .
Papers which make dozens  assumptions to get somewhere  are generally wrong and do not represent any law of nature. People with poor mathematics abilities do pseudo physics which explain nothing and only makes the noise.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
36 answers
A quantum gravity theory based on the equivalence of gravitational and relativistic mass is developed from Newton's inverse square law which assumes a form of Schrodinger like wave equation. Solution of this wave equation generates the entire table of standard model particles.Is there a comparable theory that can do the same thing?
Relevant answer
Answer
No, these theories claim a lot but are far from the knowledge gathered in the standard model. Personally I doubt that there is a fundamental role for quantum gravity theories.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
13 answers
I read somewhere that Einstein's equations may be expressed in terms of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation, but i am not sure yet how to do that.
In a paper, Fiziev and Shirkov discuss solutions of Klein-Fock-Gordon equation and its implications to Einstein's equations. In effect, this may imply that Einstein's equations have wave-type solutions.
What do you think? Your comments are welcome.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you Stam, for your answer. Best wishes
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
3 answers
The origin of structure in the universe is one of the greatest cosmological mysteries even today. Extended topological objects such as monopoles, strings and domain walls may play a fundamental role in the formation of our universe. Phase transitions in the early universe can give rise to these topological defects. A topological defect is a discontinuity in the vacuum and can be classified according to the topology of the vacuum manifold. Monopoles are point like topological defects and are formed where M contains surfaces which cannot be continuously shrunk to a pointy i.e. when π2 (M) ≠ I. ( M is the vacuum manifold ) [1] one of most important works about Abelian gauge theories was due to the P. M. Dirac many years ago, who proposed a new solution to the Maxwell equations. His new solution for the vector potential corresponds to a point-like magnetic monopole with a singularity string running from the particle’s position to infinity [2]
[1] F. Rahaman, S.Mal and P. Ghosh; A study of global monopole in Lyra geometry
[2] A. L. Cavalcanti de Oliveira ∗ and E. R. Bezerra de Mello; Kaluza-Klein Magnetic Monopole in Five-Dimensional Global Monopole Spacetime
Relevant answer
Answer
John, I tried to look at the preprint but all the links seem to be down?
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
31 answers
If the universe appeared out of the vacuum due to vacuum fluctuations, is not entropy reduced? And if entropy is reduced, does this not require an external source of energy?
Relevant answer
Answer
Universe is made up of nothing but the energy and the observer. If we know the origin of these two, we know everything. The body of the observer is made up of nothing but the energy, but the consciousness of the observer is not the energy. So now we are left with energy and consciousness. If we know the relation between the two and if we know their origin, we know everything. Space and time does not have physical existence so we should not worry about them. Forces are simply rate of change of energy, so we should not worry about them. We know that consciousness simply appears in the universe and then disappears. No one is able to create or destroy consciousness. Same is true for the energy. So the consciousness and energy can never be created or destroyed. We notice that energy is always associated with motion without exception. We also know that consciousness has no motion whatsoever. Human senses and measuring instruments can only detect that which has some motion. They are completely incapable of detecting that which has no motion. Empty space does not have any motion. So I propose that it is filled with the infinite motionless Consciousness without any boundary. Fraction of this infinite consciousness moves by its own power and gives out discrete quanta of consciousness which we call vaccum fluctuations or energy. When this energy evolves to the state of a CELL, the motionless consciousness enters into it to see what it has done. Then rest of the evolution is a familiar story.
When the universe is projected in accelerated expansion, the entropy is reduced. But the formalism discussed in the attached article shows that the process is perfectly reversible and therefore the sum total of the entropy of the process of evolution and involution of the universe is zero. The source of energy is the infinite indivisible motionless blissful consciousness (Spirit) without any boundary. Therefore the search for the fundamental building block of the universe may not yield anything.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
1 answer
As far as I know in order to explain the horizon problem in cosmology, two major theories have been put forward viz, inflation and VSL (varying speed of light). My question is this, by detecting primordial gravity waves by BICEPS 2, thus proving the inflation theory, what happens to the VSL theory? Does the VSL theory also predict B-mode polarization? Sorry if my question is amateur, I would appreciate it if you could enlighten me on this topic.
Relevant answer
Answer
“The astronomers who earlier this year announced that they had evidence of primordial gravitational waves jumped the gun, two independent analyses suggest.”
“Now, serious flaws in the analysis have been revealed that transform the sure detection into no detection.”
“The BICEP2 incident has also revealed a truth about inflationary theory. The common view is that it is a highly predictive theory. If that was the case and the detection of gravitational waves was the ‘smoking gun’ proof of inflation, one would think that non-detection means that the theory fails. Such is the nature of normal science. Yet some proponents of inflation who celebrated the BICEP2 announcement already insist that the theory is equally valid whether or not gravitational waves are detected. How is this possible?”
“The answer given by proponents is alarming: the inflationary paradigm is so flexible that it is immune to experimental and observational tests.”
“Hence, the paradigm of inflation is unfalsifiable.”
“In the mid-20th century, Karl Popper put forth the criterion of falsifiability to distinguish science from nonscience.”
There are some substantial revelations around the corner for big bang proponents; i.e. the theory is verifiably incorrect through several direct, previously overlooked observations. Beyond this, the central evidence for the theory is so tunable that it has become unfalsifiable; i.e. pseudoscience.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
3 answers
Zero point energy is not zero.
Relevant answer
Answer
Putting it another way, as you fall into a black hole whose massenergy is all initially assumed to exist in the form of a central singularity, then as you fall, you encounter greater and greater levels of Hawking radiation within r=2M on the way down, and this means that the region inside r=2M appears to you to contain energy and particles that are NOT located at the singularity point. As you fall deeper, you encounter a stronger and stronger flux of massenergy inside 2M but outside the singularity, and as you finally reach the singularity position, then, assuming that there's enough energy left for there to be a significant object at that location (and that you haven't already passed most or all of the hole's massenergy on your way down), you should see the remaining tiny "effective horizon" separating you and whatever's left at r=0 to be radiating so intensely that you see it radiate away all its remaining massenergy into the surrounding area as a final burst of Hawking radiation before you hit it.
And this is an idealised best-case scenario that ignores things like the fact that you can't "free-fall" to r=0 if you're being opposed by a radiation pressure and Hawking particle density that gets progressively higher towards the region's centre. As these things resist your freefall, you feel stronger and stronger physical acceleration effects, and as a physically accelerated (non-freefall) observer you then also see an increasingly strong Unruh radiation component.
SO:
If we start out by trying to give the "singularity" idea the benefit of the doubt, and then take into account quantum effects, then the observable physics inside r=2M would seem to correspond with what we would expect if no such singularity existed. Instead of getting a description of an empty central region containing a central sharply-defined point-mass, the core should appear to a local infalling explorer to be a hot region filled with radiation and material, whose density steady increases towards the centre of the region, with nothing singular to see at the centre. Also, given that the central region should contain so much of the hole's massenergy spread out (by radiation), there'd not even be any particular reason to assume the "pointy" gravitational tidal-forces "footprint" of a central singularity - so not only would an observer outside r=2M not be able to verify the singularity's existence, it might be that there is no obvious primary or secondary evidence to support the existence of a singularity, even for hypothetical observers //inside// r=2M, even if they were right by r=0, or right at r=0.
----
Note that his argument goes well beyond the usual "censorship hypothesis" that singularities could exist but always be cloaked from direct observation by observational horizons. In //this// argument, observers inside r=2M, whose experiences define the idea of a black hole's internal physics, see a distribution of massenergy inside r=2M that doesn't agree with the idea that the hole's massenergy is all concentrated at a central point. They don't just fail to see evidence for the singularity, they see what appears to them to be counterevidence.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
9 answers
If positron is a reality, then, if we bombard the positron with electrons, is a black hole formed or into which form of energy is it transformed?
Relevant answer
Answer
The positron is real and can be observed in many experiments. When an electron and a positron annihilate, the result is a pair of photons. No black holes are involved.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
26 answers
For those who take that view - can you then please walk us through what happens in the wake of a massive supernova burst ? All the scenarios I see lead back to a black hole, and I'd be really interested in a cogent alternative scenario.
Relevant answer
Answer
In the news:
Quote
Monster Black Hole Spins at Half the Speed of Light
By by Nola Taylor , Redd, SPACE.com Contributor March 5, 2014
For the first time, astronomers have directly measured how fast a black hole spins, clocking its rotation at nearly half the speed of light.
Unquote
(The rest of the article is on line)
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
18 answers
A preference for spiral galaxies in one sector of the sky to be left-handed or right-handed spirals has indicated a parity violating asymmetry in the overall universe and a preferred axis.
Could the large-scale magnetic field be related to the predominant left-handed neutrinos in our cosmic sphere as well?
Relevant answer
Answer
As far as I know the handedness of spiral galaxies
is determined by the citizen-science project Galaxy Zoo.
Michael Longo et al. found that there seems to be an
excess of left-handed spiral galaxies which might be
a sign of a rotating universe.
But in the meantime it turned out that there is a psychological
bias toward seeing left handed spirals.
Further reading:
Regards,
Joachim
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
10 answers
How does gravity effect everything regardless of its mass? Or is their a smallest particle common in everything that is effected by gravity?
Relevant answer
Answer
To build upon the comments by Lawrence, Ludwig,......., equivalence principle from which ensues a geometrical formulation of gravitation (first realized by Einstein) holds the key to the answer. The observed equivalence principle according to which acceleration of an object is independent of its mass leads to the general theory of relativity in which it is the space-time geometry that masquerades as gravity. Then, in the absence of other forces, any test particle will simply be following a geometrical path (namely, the geodesic) regardless of its mass. This does not hold good for any other force, e.g. for charge particles in an electric field, acceleration depends on charge to mass ratio. That's why no other force can be `geometrified'.
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
103 answers
Assuming that the Big Bang theory reflects the actual chronology of "The Birth of the Universe", imposes the question of whether The Big Bang makes sense without existence of The Initial Singularity? If not, then The Initial Singularity Theory grows to the fundamental problem of "The Birth of the Universe".
Thus, what is the place of The Initial Singularity Theory in the chronology of "The Birth of the Universe"? Does Initial Singularity existed before the Big Bang only as a philosophical idea, or only a mathematical boundary condition - in other words - only as the zero point, which arose just to get at the same time explode?
If Initial Singularity does not only the zero point, then I asked the question: How long the Initial Singularity existed before The Big Bang?
Relevant answer
Answer
Ovidiu Cristinel
Thank you for your interesting text.
I admit, that my question was inspired by a recent reading of M. Bojowald article from 2001 year: "Absence of a Singularity in Loop Quantum Cosmology".
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
1109 answers
Each time a new class of lasers was allowed to produce shorter light pulses, people were wondering whether a time quantization would be observed. The smallest possible quantization is Planck's time 10^-44 s. Some nuclear resonances have been reported having an energy width suggesting a Fourier transform limited duration of 10¨-26s.
Relevant answer
Answer
The question cannot really be answered unless the question 'what is time?' is answered first.
Once that one is convincingly dealt with, then the answer as to whether time is quantized will either answer itself, or turn out to be largely meaningless (for instance, if it turns out that time is not fundamental but, say, an epiphenomenon which reflects something else entirely, but which 'precipitates' as time under a specific narrow set of conditions & parameters - or environment.)
  • asked a question related to Quantum Cosmology
Question
1 answer
When Roger Penrose wrote his first book on consciousness (The Emperor's New Mind, 1989), he lacked a detailed proposal for how quantum processing could be implemented in the brain. Nevertheless, he suggested that objective reduction represented neither randomness, nor the algorithm-based processing of most physics, but instead a non-computable influence embedded in the fundamental level of space-time geometry, from which mathematical understanding and, by later extension of the theory, consciousness derived (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mind).
Moreover, he gave a talk in those years On the Origins of Twistor Theory, elaborating that the role of complex numbers in quantum theory had long struck him as a quite crucial one. "If the 'correct' geometry for the world is to be a closely quantum one, then these same complex numbers must be an essential part of this geometry. My training as a (largely pure) mathematician had taught me something of the power, subtlety and elegance of complex (holomorphic) geometry. It had seemed fitting that this might be the geometry most basic to the structure of the physical world. Yet in its most obvious manifestations, physical geometry seems to be geometry over R, not C." (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/#04)
And further down he continued: "Of course the possibility of simply describing things in terms of complexified (compactified) Minkowski space CM had occurred to me but - for reasons which are still not entirely clear to me - I had (correctly)* rejected this as insufficiently subtle for Nature. I think that one reason for being unhappy with CM as playing a primary role in physics was that the complexification is far too gross. As many additional "unseen" dimensions (namely four) would need to be adjoined as are already directly physically interpretable." (http://users.ox.ac.uk/~tweb/00001/#07)
(=> perhaps, in the present climate of eleven-dimensional generalized Kaluza-Kiein theories, this objection would carry little weight with most people. However, to me it was, and still is, a fundamental drawback).
In this respect, our views differ from those of Roger Penrose: