Leaderboard

There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be.

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose?

Well you have been disappointingly combative towards replies in this thread. I thought you wanted to discuss this excellent subject and I welcome the input and ideas from several others. Out of interest here is what Richard Courant the famous Mathematician and mathematical educator has to say on the subject: Note carefully he claims that it is impossible to proove that (-1) x (-1) = +1. I has to be defined that way.

Sometimes am having problem accessing the thread. When I joined this forum I had a theory developed with sheer logical reasoning and minimum already established scientific facts like charges of a quark,and published a book about it in a most basic layman language,my background is not physics oriented but I believed we need a basic theory that someone need to go back to and make references from it's principles....and if this theory is the actual basic theory then answers should get along with it....that's a long story. My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. the reason then why the number of SU(3) units it's not getting a long with the number of photons and protons in the universe is the way this holograph is being projected,the projection 'might' being interfered with by quantum noise....the information is encoded on the surface of of SU(3) structure (remember this)... quantum noise is coming from quantum soup.... universe expansion reduces temperature hence reducing quantum noise overtime(refining the projection).....meaning the solution the author is introducing is a constancy of proportionality-the rate at which this refining is taking place i.e how the classical universe governed by GR is emerging from quantum world governed by QFT.....hope that's not too much.

I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it.what the author is doing is a continuation of arguments present in the video you posted above. I think if there was a specific directions such a solution is supposed to come from it should have been arrived at longtime ago. By the way,thanks for the video,it's a good learning material.

For while now, I've been slowly trying to learn Finnish, since it was the natural tongue of all my grandparents. However this isn't going to be strictly about that but abut learning languages in general. They often start by teaching you a few simple phrases, that may come in useful, (hello, my name is... etc.) One of those phrases is often along the lines of "Do you speak English(or whatever language you normally speak)? For example, in Finnish, this would be "Puhetko* englanitia?" After some thought, I realized that there is no real reason you need to know how to say this. If you were in Finland and wanted to ask someone if they spoke English, you could just ask in English. If they do, they will understand you, and answer in English, and if they don't, they'll say something like "Ei"( no), or "en ymmärrä"( I don't understand), or give you some other indication that they don't. Either way, you've got your answer. Now, I can see where it would appear more polite to ask in Finnish( or in whatever the language is where you are), but in a purely logical sense. it is not strictly necessary. And of course, the one thing you definitely shouldn't do if you get the second response is to ask the question again, but LOUDER.... AND....SLOWER. *or "puhutteko" if you being formal or addressing more than one person.

Well it should be remembered that an algebraic ring structure has two differnt definitionss, dependin which side of the atlantic you are on. But it should also be remembered that our construction of (formal) algebraic sturcutures are designed to relflect the convenient arithmetic structures we have found convenient for other purposes. It would actually be OK to define (-1) x (-1) = -1. That would still form a hemi group (or semigroup if you wish) under multiplication. However american practice requires there to be a unique non zero identity for multiplication, which would not be the case with -1. It is notable that Birkhoff and MacLane (american definitions) start off on page 1 with this subject and reach the crux of it by page 6 (so a bit much to post here as an extract) with 'the integers following 8 postulates. Definitely a bit much for 12 year olds I feel.

Surely...I asked you if the formulas employed by the author were wrong you never replied to that...the author is using physics mathematics,I don't understand which other way should someone reason to get a solution....?(I myself questioned the use of the term SU(3) atom given I had a diagram related to that, I was told to throw it down the sink..it's resisting the sink....am getting to know the jargon...who knows next round it's mathematics...)...what is correct is correct no matter the different language verbal or mathematic that one uses to give the solution.

..mostly by you..

Mental illness, even more likely. Check out his previous threads on the hollow Earth and bending laser beams with your thoughts.

More like QM is everywhere, but a lot of the time it doesn’t matter. The issue I have with some of these QM in biology stories is that they’re built on multiply-stacked hypotheses, individually without experimental confirmation. And the top-level proposal, of course, also lacks such evidence. Show me the actual entanglement and what the effects are.

I totally disagree with this statement in physics any achievement should still be compatible with other known physics. Achievement isn't accomplished through hand wavy statements that one cannot apply known physics to describe

Good point. I was thinking of using reflections too, until I remembered fermions. I don't think children would care too much about fermions tho... I agree. Any other choice would give you problems with the distributive property and/or other equally fundamental properties though. After all, there must be a reason why we've been choosing that option and no other one has resulted in an interesting algebraic framing.

The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer?

The method described in the video uses the vacuum energy from quantum fluctuations, where we consider the maximum energy available in the smallest unit of measurable time ( according to the HUP ), in the smallest unit of measurable space. The OP decides to 'throw out' all quantum fluctuations below the volume of a proton ( equal to the SU(3) atom ). We know that there are quantum fluctuations below that scale, and that they contribute to the vacuum energy. Yet your pet theory says they don't, and we should believe it ? That was the issue with your 'early' posts; you tend to believe your 'logic' as opposed to actual observations. You can find other videos similar to the one I posted, at this site https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsExplainedVideos/videos Most are very interesting and educational.

... unless you're a fermion 🙂

Sometimes this occurs when both parties feel strongly about their current understanding so the debate can sometimes get rather heated. Lol often end up expressing the same thing but differently. I never treat it as personal and in the case of this thread never considered md65536 as delivering any personal attack. It may oft seem that way but it's not the case. For the record I'm equally to blame for how heated the discussion had gotten and fully admit that. I also never hold grudges and have nothing against md65536

Huh? I do not see it on my tablet, but I posted in Chromium on my Linux notebook. And there I see it again. But when I 'fly over' I see 'unavailable'. Maybe local cache. Trying again:

! Moderator Note I think this is rife with unsupported premises; none of your assertions are backed up with evidence. I also think this sounds like propaganda. What I know is this is a discussion forum, not your blog, and opinions do not overrule facts. I also know this is locked.

This is pretty intuitive, I think: Rule: A negative sign reverses the positive sign to negative, and another negative sign reverses the sign again back to positive. I thought it was just like an axiom to make things consistent with the other mathematical rules.

Yes they are also presented this way in the book, but you didn't ask about them.

Exactly the first approach in my last post. 😀

The universe is made up of approximately 5%visible matter,it depend with the nature of interaction... neutrinos are passing through you continuously some energetic than the photons that hit you in mid day sunlight...you are not scattered off.

As far as I remember: Learn multiplication tables by rote Apply multiplication tables to negative multiplicands Logically extend multiplication tables backwards for negative multipliers Hope little minds latch on to the underlying symmetries

Thank you for posting this topic it made me stop and think. +1 My offering was taken from a mid 20th century book. Unfortunately my wife 'persuaded' me to let go some more modern elementary maths texts in favour of Music theory and Elementary Pharmaceutical Chemistry etc discarded by the younger generation. However I have one modern book left, but it was really aimed at adults. "Maths made easy for Science , Engineering and Business'. This presents analternative approach. I have yet to dig out my older texts such as Hall and Knight. Here also is another approach but requires an appeal to symmetry

It was a loooong time ago, but I seem to remember the teacher comparing to even and odd numbers, and how two odds make an even, while two evens also make an even.

@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.

My recollections coincide with @studiot's. Rule. Trying to think about it afresh, if you accept that 1+(-1)=0, which seems far more intuitive, as well as (-1)*0=0 and (-1)*1=-1, the distributive property forces you to admit that, 0=(-1)*0=(-1)*(1+(-1))=(-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=-1+(-1)*(-1) so (-1)*(-1) must be 1, which is the additive inverse of -1. I'm not sure that would be very persuasive to children though... I love this joke. It works in Spanish with "sí, sí" too. The intonation is essential.

Do they have to be little ? I seem to remember it was presented as a rule rather than withe proof/justification. Here is a typical treatment with limited justification followed by Learn the rule it is easier.

This being a science forum, it is unlikely there will be experts on this subject here. Have you tried a religious forum? There seem to be plenty of them around.

The more physics one studies the more interconnected one realizes different theories get +1

Something basically nobody here cares about in any way whatsoever.

The author is dealing with spacetime its self...the layout of the universe it's self..the basic, fundamental vacuum....on page 16 he talks about sentience and self replication....I hope you now get the idea...that's why am talking of a concept from this forum a year ago, specifically speculation section?????????. I don't mean quantum noise. No further queries.

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author? According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.

..and what Joigus has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

When you I think from a holographic perspective...mmmm...I think things turn out to be more complicated with huge implications...that would end up touching on the issue of Universe Age/evolution it's self..

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 propose to combine, using emitters of electromagnetic waves and radiation, electromagnetic waves of different lengths - radio waves and radioactivity. So that there are ripples of radioactivity on an electromagnetic wave of high power and length (like ripples of small waves on a large sea wave). An electromagnetic wave of great length and power (radio wave) acts as a carrier of radioactivity. This can increase the distance of radioactivity and allow you to change the properties of radioactive elements over a long distance. Which can be used to deactivate radioactive waste from a safe distance.