Recent content by carl_sebastian

There is zero evidence for that, you are just trying to save a failing cosmological model.

Ofc one of your assumptions must be wrong and i think the error is assuming infinite time over big rip or something else that would be the end our our (current) universe.

This is if you count hadrons as single particles or if all hadrons are unstable.

That's incorrect 1. the universe never becomes empty and there may also be vacuum fluctuations allowing for interactions. 2. why do you bring up "measurements" if interpretation is irrelevant? So you are already assuming "no vacuum fluctuations" and that a measurement of some kind is required...

I took a look and it obviously doesn't prove anything, i am pretty sure it's wrong, it does however offer a way out (case2, earlier post).

Case0 Boltzmann brains can emerge in complete vacuum, thus both space* and time must me limited but you cannot reach the end of our universe since it's expanding at the speed of light. *at least space where vacuum fluctuations can occur. Case1 A Boltzmann brain can emerge from a single...

Why would a volume containging a single particle always be in the ground state?

That only offered a solution for absolute vacuum but our universe will never become empty in the standard picture, just accelerated expansion forever.

If our universe would just continue to expand we would run into the Boltzmann brain problem and there would not be a complete vacuum since there would always be particles.

Otherwise an infinite amount of Boltzmann brains would emerge every second if space is infinite.

I think this refutes the standard picture since if ylour universe would just keep expanding we should be a Boltzmann brain. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain https://arxiv.org/pdf/0802.0233 I would bet on the "big rip" (dark energy getting stronger) since that would also resolve...

Review of this model: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/spectral-standard-model-string-compactifications/ Newer model that claims to get dark matter particles and the correct higgs mass: https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1367-2630/17/2/023021/meta

It's a bit strange i didn't hear about this theory earlier, looks very promising. There are a lot of details in the standard model you have to get right and if you are using a proper approach for a fundamental theory and get all details correct it's actually very likely your theory correct...

It looks very bad. But if it is the case that their theory predicts the correct higgs mass and the theory was published before the LHC discovery (assuming they didn't make a mistake at cern) it would still be very impressive assuming they havn't changed the underlying theory. But of course...

First they got the higgs mass wrong (according to 2 independent measurements) but later they found a way to get the correct mass (after the mass already had been determined via LHC). https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0610241 https://arxiv.org/abs/1208.1030 This looks too good to be true to me.