Leaderboard

@Albert2024, @JosephDavid, and the other guy, Let's hammer it home again. At some point somebody among you will understand (one can only hope). No vacuum in QFT has external legs. The vacuum in QFT is made up of things that look like, This means, in a manner of speaking, that the amplitudes (infinitely many of them) go from nothing to nothing. The vacuum state gives zero as expected value for the number operator of each and every particle. That, people, is what we call a vacuum. And thereby the name. A vacuum ultimately has nothing in it, except for amplitudes of something appearing there, and swiftly disappearing, according to quantum rules (HUP). Vacuum = nothing. Doh! OTOH, In the diagramatics of QFT, the "vacuum" this "paper" seems to be talking about would look something like this, That is, it has external legs (real particles that go from \(t=-\infty\) to \(t=+\infty\). In the picture I've represented a triplet of SU(3). It could be an octet, or whatever. Maybe not even an irreducible rep. of SU(3). What have you. It would have ramifications displaying vacuum polarisation, and so on. The point is: This is no vacuum. These "atoms" are there, and they keep there. Do you understand? Do you? Really? Do you, at long last, understand? Precision tests of the standard model would have detected this background (rather than vacuum) long ago, because other particles would scatter off these "atoms" copiously (among other things they would have to be 1043 times more abundant than nucleons and electrons, and 1033 times more abundant than photons. So, presumably, your beloved paper has been turned down experimentally ages ago. Remember this comment, which you also chose to ignore?: Maybe it's another completely different SU(3) gauge group, with its own coupling constant and all. You tell me. I don't have to read the article, as per SFN rules. If my arguments are wrong or misplaced, then answer them, instead of cajoling each other with idle pleasantries and even idler reputation points, plus meaningless punishing -rep points, as @Mordred pointed out. And that will be all, unless you finally come up with real counter-arguments from physics. Bye.

While the standard method for deriving the vacuum energy density involves harmonic oscillators and the Planck scale cut-off, the method utilized in the 2nd half of this video gives related critical reasoning for using the Planck scale cut-off. Using a cut-off of the SU()3) atom scale, approximately the size of a proton, would seem to ignore energy contributions from smaller scales, without a reasonable related explanation such as in the video. The fact that the SU\(3) atom scale happens to give numbers which seem to fit our needs is, then, finding relations where none exist, AKA numerology. ( Note that the method used in the video calculates the maximum Planck energy allowed in Planck time as per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and, while simple to understand, may not be nuanced enough to consider factors which may reduce this maximum. )

Your dreams reflect your conscious brain trying to make sense of unconscious activity and striving to apply a narrative to that makes sense in context of the items you’re thinking about while awake. You’re obviously thinking of physics concepts and sci interfere that’s the frame under which your mind explains your dreams to yourself. Nothing to do with quantum theory tho

This “my teacher hates me” take is a dime-a-dozen, so I’m not surprised to see it. But the truth is you broke the rules - the specifics were pointed out to you - and that’s why it was locked. You didn’t post “hard facts,” you spammed us with videos, and you escalated the rhetoric. And I don’t know what-all this has to do with academia; did you think you had wandered onto a college campus? We’re willing to host reasoned discussion, and the rules are set up to facilitate that. Follow the rules, and you can present your argument. If you don’t follow the rules, threads get locked.

"Little children" in my question are school kids which are taught this rule - 3rd grade? As I don't remember any explanation given then to me, I think that there was not one. Like above. Just a rule. I wonder, is it still this way? Everywhere? "Hand waving" explanations like in the book posted by @studiot and the odd-even metaphor recalled by @MigL help perhaps to "get" the rule. How about a "Guess the Rule" game? Let them come up with a possible rule and find that other suggestions don't work?

Your POV always seems like a parody to me, like you're just trolling to get people to comment on ridiculous statements. "I hate scientists who make weapons, but appreciate the ones who protect Americans!" Your reality has lots of noise and very, very little signal.

My French mother in law thought an aeroglisseur was an “overcraft” in English, because it went “over” the water (in this case the English Channel/la Manche). The joke of course is that the way someone with a French accent would say “hovercraft” is more or less “overcraft”, so she had laboured under this misapprehension for years without anybody noticing.

Oh, i see.. hmmm, well, in that case i'm gonna have to re-examine it a bit more, thanks for the heads up =/

Ok, I changed my mind: I'll probably look into info about Newton gravity, general relativity, and quantum theory a bit more - and a bit of mathematics related to these if possible too. Sorry about my bit drama manner.

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics. The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective. For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger... Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

I live in middle America where the plains are swept with winds almost nonstop. I figured my local grid is powered by clean and green wind turbines. I figured my posts here are brung to you by clean renewable energy. The wind, it seems, is the solution to pollution. As Bob Dylan once sang, "The answer my friend, is blowin' in the wind."

I agree. Businesses best serve the public when the public holds them. Why did stupid Americans vote otherwise to privatize utilities then complain about big electric bills? Americans are indoctrinated that capitalism is always a "good" thing.

Science is human technical knowledge. It can be applied for good or evil purposes. I thank those very much who've applied science to bring me the air conditioner in my home and the one in my automobile so I don't die of a heat stroke or an asthma attack on very hot days. I appreciate those who are applying science to try to make cancer a thing of the past. I appreciate those who are applying science in the name of getting mankind off fossil fuels for good by substituting those nasty, dirty finite things for clean and safe renewable energy means. I deplore those who have applied science to create weapons of mass destruction to cause widespread death and suffering. I appreciate those who are applying science to try to protect Americans from possible nuclear attacks from evil nations abroad.

My thread involving sensible wildlife conservation was just locked. It just goes to show how far emotions vs hard facts and truths have infiltrated academia. I just don't know what warm-and-fuzzy stuff to post at this site that makes others here feel good.

This following video is a testament to brain-dead idiots in Pinko anti-American state capitol buildings who don't know a Walker treeing hound from a Walker Colt.