Leaderboard

I don’t understand when people say things like this, but at this point I don’t care; I just assume they were dropped on their head as a child and lack the ability to distinguish the many differences Which is not an option, so this is moot. “spoiling” the ballot (like with 3rd party candidates) just might get the fascist elected

You've got the gist of what the author's getting at, but let me clarify a bit. The author is still using the Planck scale as the cutoff in the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, that's standard in quantum field theory. But here's where things get interesting: instead of accepting that enormous vacuum energy density we get from QFT with this cutoff (you know, the one that's off by about 123 orders of magnitude from what we observe), the author proposes a new way to look at it. He suggests that the vacuum energy isn't just uniformly spread out but is effectively distributed over a huge number of "SU(3) vacuum atoms." Now, these aren't atoms like you find on the periodic table. They're units associated with the unbroken SU(3) symmetry of the strong nuclear force. To figure out how many of these SU(3) atoms there are, he divides the total volume of the universe by the volume of a proton, since protons are governed by SU(3) symmetry. By thinking of the vacuum energy as spread out over all these SU(3) atoms, the effective vacuum energy density comes way down. This redistribution brings the theoretical prediction precisely equal to the observed value, tackling that massive discrepancy without changing the Planck scale cutoff itself. Now, you mentioned you still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale, and that's a reasonable concern. The author is basing this scale on the properties of the strong nuclear force and the unbroken SU(3) symmetry, arguing that this scale might be more relevant for vacuum energy considerations. It's a departure from the usual methods, sure, but it offers a fresh perspective on the cosmological constant problem that might be worth exploring further. In essence, the author isn't throwing out the Planck scale but is reinterpreting how the vacuum energy calculated with it can be reconciled with what we actually observe, by considering the structure of the vacuum at the scale of the strong force. It's an interesting idea that challenges us to think differently about a long-standing problem.

For starters spacetime is already a 4d metric with space itself being 3d. Secondly dimension is an independent degree of freedom not some alternative reality. 3rd the event horizon is an artifact of a metric not a true singularity condition so there are plenty of peer reviewed accepted methods showing this details its well covered in numerous textbooks of GR. Lastly no physicist actually believes in the infinite density as it's known nonsensical hence it's a mathematical singularity. Hopefully your theory has relevant mathematics as it's required both as a theory and a rule included above in the pinned threads for rules and guidelines of the Speculation forum. The format for latex on this site uses \[latex\*] for new line \(latex\*) for inline simply remove the * I used to prevent activation.

When you use a Q-tip to clean your ear, you need to stop pushing it in when you encounter resistance. I'm sorry this advisory didn't reach you earlier!

This sounds like pro-Trump propaganda from a troll farm, and as such is one of the stupidest things any American who wants to preserve our democracy could do. Yep. Straight from TFG's scripts.

Those defending this paper should tell us why the author is so obsessed with referring to 'vacuum atom' while it's clear that, is relating SU(3) symmetry with scale i.e scaling the the universe using SU(3) symmetry. On page 16 the author is talking of sentience and self replication....from his many references has he quoted every bit of sources and inspiration. Its a wonderful thing from the arguments how the figures are matching...relating nucleon size to the whole of universe,however,,the explanation is lacking when it comes to issues concerning dark energy and given the fact the universe continuous expansion beyond observable universe.

You appear to be the only person who reads your writing as you do. At least one other agree with me that your posts are generally loaded or overlaid with something outside Science. Perhaps that is why you don't answer simple direct questions. Most of us see this as a sustained attack, not on any particular person, but on Science and Scientists in general. So do you think patterns can be any of Good , Bad or Indifferent or only some of these or what ? What is even more disconcerting is the plot you posted. Have you given it any consideration at all ? Like for instance what was the source material it was drawn up from ? It gives the impression that no calculus - derivatives, integrals, gradients, differential or integral equtions and so on are used in Physics. The sort of impression one might get from polling junior high school precalculus texts. That is why I want the source article. For convenience I am posting the plot again here No calculus ? How's that pattern or is it bias looking now ?

That’s the fallacy of personal incredulity. A form of bias. Zipf applies to more than physics laws and language. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law Guess what? Patterns exist! Back to brains, eh? To show bias, you have to show where the result is wrong. You haven’t done that. You’re using bias as a bogeyman. It has no meaning in these discussions anymore. Again, you say that something should not happen but have no support for it. Not being the way you want it to be - isn’t that a form of bias? Bogeyman.

Is chemistry the best scientific discipline for a person interested in a renewable energy career that is technically oriented? I have a special interest in emerging renewable energy technologies and advancing wide-spread human uses of renewable energy in various forms including ocean wave generated electricity. I have a special interest in eliminating man's dependency upon fossil fuels and other finite forms of energy such as nuclear power as soon as possible. I enjoy breathing clean air and having clean water to drink, fish in, swim in, dive in and go boating in. I have a keen interest in the emergence of the world's most advanced battery-rechargeable automobiles, trucks, buses, motorboats, vans and SUV's that are both fire-safe and practical to operate on public roads (and waterways) and I particularly admire Toyota's solid state battery project now in the works. There is a big concern in the consumer car-buying market about the limited range and load capacity of a plug-in EV operating on conventional rechargeable batteries for automotive use, including light-duty trucks that are often asked to tow trailers long distances, and of the fire dangers of conventional Lithium-Ion batteries. A practical plug-in EV full-size pickup truck, in theory, would be able to travel at least as far and as fast under maximum trailer load conditions and in the harshest of weather conditions on a single charge as any comparable gasoline or diesel truck could do on a tankful of fossil fuel. Perhaps solid-state batteries will one day have at least as much energy density as do petroleum-based fuels. It takes so many calories to do so much work over a given amount of time. If I could drive a full-size plug-in pickup truck at least 400 miles at Interstate speeds on a full charge with a travel trailer in tow, I would be indeed one happy camper. The question is how much would the electricity from a recharging station along the way cost me out of pocket to fully recharge that wonderful plug-in EV truck vs the cost to refuel a comparable fossil-fuels-powered truck after making a similar travel trailer trip? A prudent buyer has to consider both practicality and economics when shopping for a vehicle. Besides chemistry, what other scientific disciplines are applied to the field of renewable energy? Physics? Ecology?

Was being able to travel to the moon worth the invention of nuclear weapons? What checks are there on scientific and technological advancement leading to dangerous scenarios.

Why do people from MIT and Caltech hate, ostracise, and bully eccentrics and introverts? Is it because of the fact that those educational institutions glorify machismo, violence, extroversion, conformity, machiavellianism, toxic masculinity, social hierarchies, status, and charisma? Also, I learned that males with Dark Triad personality traits(Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and Psychopathy) are the most popular in those educational institutions especially with females. Males with Dark Triad personality traits have far more friends and far more sex partners than any other people in those educational institutions. These are the unsavory characteristics of those educational institutions that I heard from mature rational adults that I know. Help! Because I want to get into either MIT or Caltech but I am scared. I am an eccentric introvert.