Mordred

I've come across that before so it is one of the considerations I've seen before I would have to dig to find that paper I had read that on . If I recall it was related to a center of mass conjecture. I believe Roveilli also had a similar grain of thinking with regards to 5d to 4d Star paper but will have to double check on that (I can't recall if he was looking at BH as the star itself )

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.

Common misconceptions would also be useful such as -what is really meant by expansion -dark matter (endless list) -dark energy (endless list) -Spacetime fabric myth (endless list) How are cosmological distances determined Early universe large scale structure formation Early universe star generation formation Myths surrounding black holes CMB Compton scattering Just some ideas

Your welcome Excellent question we can never measure individual virtual particles we can only infer their existence through indirect evidence through effects such as the Cassimer effect. They have insufficient energy/lifetime to individually be measurable and once you can make a measurement your measuring a particle itself and not a VP. One of the problems with oversimplification to get the conceptual ideas across is often one must drop certain details. Cross sections for example is an ensemble of particles with probability functions giving rise to probability currents as well. It's the weighted averaging of a large collection of measured scattering events done in an experimental apparatus. Positive and negative charge. Think back to that sine wave anytime the wave is in the negative x and y portion of the graph it's negative charge . When it's in the positive x and y axis it's positive charge. Energy and energy density is always positive unless it's being compared to a baseline with a non zero value. That's the typical layout it's doesn't have to be that way but it's a standardized layout. We also usually use the x axis for the direction of the particle. The right hand rule is useful to determine which direction the force of a field operates with its relation to its current flow. That's its primary relevance this gets applied also when in other field treatments for much the same reasons Don't worry it does take practice to fully grasp Going to add a further detail. Those Feymann diagrams that look like 2 incoming particles colliding is in the mathematics a mean average of each particle ensemble of a specific type so each leg is a ensemble or beam of incoming and outgoing particles.

An essential lesson to also understand charge, parity and time symmetry between particles and anti particles. This link will help visualize the propogator above don't worry about the math just look at the images and descriptives. https://web-docs.gsi.de/~wolle/TELEKOLLEG/KERN/LECTURE/Wollersheim/2020/53-FeynmanDiagrams.pdf To help with Studiots lesson. https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-cross-product.html As well as the Right hand rule

Take for example the sinusoidal plane wave here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phase_(waves)&wprov=rarw1 This wave you have no means of determining a beginning or end so you cannot localize the wave. This would be an example of a fluctuations. Now an example of an excitation. Specifically the Dirac Delta function which is used to localize your electrons via the Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations ( don't worry about those last two terms just yet.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#:~:text=The Dirac delta is used,impact by a Dirac delta. Notice in the animation the sharp spike leading to infinity. You can clearly see a beginning or end of that spike. That is an example of an excitation.. Now the interesting part is that the Delta function also works with a specific set of math treatments to determine the mean lifetime of a particle as well as it's mass/momentum relations. Via the Breit Wigner distribution ie the cross section of a particle. Again don't worry yet on that distribution function that requires considerable preliminary teachings to understand how that works. Very few members on this forum would understand what I'm doing there even though every formula in that thread is taught by the time one gets a Bachelors in either Cosmology or particle physics. My goal there is to help organize my goals in a personal line of research into all the Cosmological applications specific to the Higgs field. As well as working out a more specific timeline for early universe processes from BB to CMB. In essence expanding on some of the literature I provided you before your break. Edit I should add a detail to further help take that Dirac delta link . If you draw a vertical line parallel to the x axis halfway up the amplitude this is where in a cross section function the mean lifetime of the particle is determined.. If the width at that line is greater than the amplitude I can no longer consider that wavefunction as representing a particle. In essence it becomes a fluctuation and not an excitation. The peak itself is the highest likelyhood of the particles location.. Now to step this up a bit The more certain you become of the particles location the less certain you become of its momentum ( this is largely due to Fourier transformations itself but not entirely ) and vice versa. Aka Heisenburg uncertainty principle To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity. To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity. Here is a video for the right hand rule for you to watch This will provide an essential detail to understand helicity in regards to all standard model field treatments. Including electromagnetism

Not too bad let's change the terminology a bit The electrons are effectively Operators they are the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The intermediate field is simply put the propogator (this is where virtual particles are applied.) The field is also an operator but the region of the transformation mathematics between the incoming and outgoing particles is the propogator action which is also a field but then so are the electrons as field excitations. Hence the Operstor and propogator action separation. Virtual particles are oft described as field fluctuations (cannot be localized ) where field excitations can be localized via a Dirac Delta function (Fourier transformation)

That was where I was thinking it may be a more accurate solution for the new cosmological problem as opposed to the old cosmological problem Weinberg has an article where he looked at that with regards to the anthropic models he used to push. Peebles also has a relevant paper distinguishing between the two. The problem is the OP has both though only describes both conditions having the relevant mathematics for the former which I had a different example on top of page one. The new Cosmological problem is why is the value so close to zero. The old problem was as you described. So your guess is as good as mine on that as I honestly do not see how the OP could possibly think the SU,(3) atoms could resolve either without including an energy mass term done using the method as my example on page 1 . The problem is there are 8 gluon fields so if you run calculations and apply over all 8 gluon fields for the 10^-15 meter value you would end up with even higher numbers than both problems the gluon mediation range is the effective range of 10^-15 meters. The reason for 8 gluon fields is the color mediation between quark combinations

A suggestion instead of looking at physical objects its seems to me you could simply examine the problem using wavelength.

Get rid of a need for an arms race good luck on that though.

There is a detail I need to reiterate. The paper requires a symmetry break that has not occurred even though every gauge group involved already has had a symmetry break event including U(1) as well as SU(3),the SU(2) symmetry break is when the W and Z bosons acquired mass. U(1) symmetry breaking is when electrons gained mass leaving photons massless. The SU(3) symmetry break quarks gained mass. This paper needs another symmetry break of U(1) to make photons massive. It conjectures this somewhere near absolute zero.

Lol truthfully I'm enjoying the paper itself it's fairly clear cut and we'll written.

Examples here Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 Any of these papers are usable they have the mathematics behind the Higgs as the cosmological constant Had the paper in the OP been of similar level I would be all for the concept

The issue with the paper isn't the concept behind the paper. I don't actually don't have an issue with the concept. The problem with the paper is that it doesn't show what it describes in the mathematics of the paper to give any means of testability. It has numerous areas where the paper makes little to no sense by its ommisions. For example if the paper had used something like Anderson-Higgs to U(1] symmetry break for class 2 superconductivity and had actually defined the SU(3) atom as something more concrete than simply providing the range of the nuclear force. Then I would be all for the idea it's not a terrible idea that's not the issue I have. The problem is as it's written it's largely unusable. To be honest in many I hope the author can develop a better written paper with a more accurate treatment. Unfortunately knowing what I do on the physics involved the best I can give is that the concept needs improvement in its development. That's just me being honest of my opinion on closer inspection of the paper. In many ways the concept has similarities with numerous Higgs as the Cosmological constant papers the unused field of the Higgs mechanism giving rise to the cosmological term. Which would closely follow the concepts of the paper.

I withdraw my comment about the math being correct. The author slipped in the theoretical bound from particle data group. It is the theoretical bound without photon coupling to Higgs. All he has done with his Lanqrangian equations of motion used do not include Higgs at all nothing they are QED only without Higgs.... \[\chi=\bar{\psi}_e\psi_e\] Being the EM field adjoint and bispinor in that order respectively on the RHS. The rest of his expressions cannot give couplings to photons as it is the photons mediating those fields above. Those photons would already be offshell as mediators.

Came across a rather clear cut yet humorous prerequisite for an article thought I would share it lol. "No prerequisites are required beside the standard courses of a Master in theoretical physics." Good article though lmao. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14504

Give the boy a cell phone instead of a landline if that helps lol

Great how much energy does each SU(3) atom contain ? How many SU(3) atoms will you need per cubic meter will you require to address the energy value given by the Zero point energy calculation provided in the article ?. Go ahead perform that calculation Or did we forget that is what article is supposed to be about in the first place ? The total number of SU(3) atoms included the universe is irrelevant the article is about the energy density per volume. I assumed the methodology used Andersen Higgs type 2 superconductivity but when I went through the Langrangians in the article realized that wasn't even in the article. I posted a link above few posts back with that theory but it's irrelevant as it's not included in the articles Langrangian equations. This is the Langrangian equations in the article I mentioned the relevant issues with gauge invariance in the quoted section. This article details Anderson Higgs. https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106070 It was more in reply to Migls previous post question as to one possibility.

Doesn't matter the method is wrong you cannot maintain conservation of mass energy by dividing particle interaction volume into the universe. There is no value given for how much each individual SU(3) has for its energy or mass. It simply doesn't work. That should be obvious

The problem with the article is the missing required details. The mathematics do not provide the needed details. I have spent considerable time over the weekend trying to figure out the authors missing details via his references and they don't even fill in the blanks.

You don't divide the range of a particles influence for the number density or number of particles that is plain wrong. You can have an infinite number of bosons in the precise same space. You can only have 1 fermion in the same state in a given space. At any point in the article has the author given an energy mass value of an SU(3) atom ? No it isn't there, so how can it possibly be used to calculate the energy density ?

Those mathematics do not describe an SU(3) atom. They do not describe the Meissner effect They do not describe what the theory is about. None of the math is the authors own. The only formula that belongs to the author is the division of his SU(3) atoms into the volume of the Observable universe.

I recognize every formula in that article. Every treatment is something done in other literature without exception. Where the errors are isn't the math it's in his descriptives and how it attempts to apply them Those formulas do not describe anything beyond what can be found in common textbooks.

Night

Spin was mathematically developed using known physics. All mainstream physics were developed using known physics. There is no magical eureka moment real physics is painstaking work applying known physics to any new theory. One of the first lessons taught to me in my formal training is that if you cannot apply mainstream physics to a theory. Then the theory is wrong. Feymann himself is commonly mentioned quoting that statement.