Mordred

What energy level is contained in each SU(3) atom. no matter what value you choose you will violate energy mass conservation when compared to the total energy of the observable universe. When you have 10^{123} SU(3) atoms. its as simple as that it doesn't matter what SU(3) is meant to describe the power 123 is the very issue here. Do you not understand rudimentary math I gave a precise means to see I am correct on that. lets try your terminology the number of microstates SU(3) atoms is too high for the observable universe that no matter what energy is contained in each microstate you surpass the total energy budget of the Observable universe error margin taking 10^93 in kg first case your proton example (yes you could do the same with the energy equivalent.) and dividing by 10^53 for total mass of the universe. WoW 10^40 times the total mass of the universe. Basic math there quite obvious. just as obvious to apply the energy momentum equation for conversions between mass and energy see that error margin yet ? try it at 1 ev per SU(3) atom Massive massless doesn't matter its the energy contained yet you argued about massless lets see \(10^{123}\) ev =\( 16.02*10^{104}\) joules apply the complete most famous equation \[E^2=\sqrt{(pc^2)+(m_oc^2)}\] that equation handles both massive and massless cases. gives \(1.783*10^{87} kg\) still an error margin of 10^34. simple math

Define energy density I want to hear what you think it is. I also want your definition of vacuum in regards to that energy density definition. You might recall I provided the equations for QCD vacuum. Show me the formula to determine the cosmological constant value for equation of state w=-1 and showing how it is derived using that formula. For all your claims you have yet to show any relevant formulas or calculations and I have done so this entire thread. So don't try to preach to me or tell me I don't know what I am talking about. What formula did I use to calculate that value ? Hint I mentioned it in this thread but never latexed it in. Lol though that's the value today what's the value at z=1100. Your relatively new here so don't really know my skills however Cosmology and particle physics I have credentials in both fields. I know the equations I mentioned they are of fundamental importance to everything I mentioned. SuSY is part of my studies. Some of those Langrangians are included by me in this thread (easily missed though if you don't know them). (Pati-Salam)

BS it is the cosmological constant has a value of roughly \[6.0*10^{-10}\] joules per cubic meter. Multiply that and see if 10^123 is equivalent. we're done its obvious you don't know what your talking about and do not wish to learn and is just trolling GL have fun

that number does not work get that through your head even if you use the lowest possible energy/ mass equivalence its wrong. PERIOD

Gluons are not DE either you cannot have an expanding universe where any particle density stays constant. Lambda is constant. Stop trying to apply the authors crap to me please. He is wrong on so many levels from what you are describing.

great What do you thing was used originally to calculate 10^90 photons of the standard model ? That number was calculated back in the 70's and is still the theoretical bounds for the universes energy budget to this very day not 10^123 using Bose-Einstein both qluons and photons have the same spin so the result will be identical

One day you will actually look at the math itself instead of trying to lecture those that have I'm fully aware of glueballs Have you ever bothered to look at the lightest theoretical value for a glueball ? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glueball try that in the method I described earlier. Multiply that by the number of SU(3) atoms then use the energy momentum formula to calculate its mass equivalence. The sheer problem is the power of 123. There is no getting around that even using photons and number of quanta a unit of quanta is in joules per hertz How many joules in one eV ? Even ignoring wavelength and just using joules if you multiply by 10 ^123 you get 10^{73} that's without the corresponding wavelength. Which we know would only get worse if you apply the wavelength.

no kidding guess I didn't know that (hear the sarcasm in my response ? did you forget \[E^2=\sqrt{(pc^2)+(m_0 c^2)}\] qluons will be whatever number density is required to mediate the color interaction between any number of quark combinations the energy equivalence to mass can be applied to above formula. That is precisely why the Langrangian includes the four momentum Momentum includes mass and velocity. After all the times I mentioned Bose-Einstein statistic's have you ever bothered to look at how it gets applied? How many times now ? for the record I tried doing the lowest order of quark combination to get a total energy for volume using the 10^{123} the lowest value I could find using the lightest meson was 10^{81} kg equivalence which is still too high. (that was using my access to feycalc at the university I do assistance instruction at.) care to tell me which meson I used ? before you mention SUSY here are the epions for SUSY for MeV energy levels https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=b86e7520a33a331471d8b4ba6e76a3d106f5c70a

no Not by any valid method I wont waste time repeating myself on the valid method via the Langrangian equations of motion, the relevant creation annihilation operators and Maxwell Boltzmann. I wasted enough time repeating myself and being ignored on those points. meson formula between two quarks page 5 example formula for quark quark interaction ground state of a bound system. \[E(r)=2m-\frac{\alpha_s}{r^2_o}+br+\frac{p^2}{m}\] where m is the mass p the momentum the radius of the ground state is \[\frac{2}{mr^3_o}=\frac{\alpha_s}{r^2_o}+b\] here is a table for you http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html apply any quark combination in that table then do the conversion with the eV Then think back to those calculations on total mass. 1 ev times 10^{123} still gives too much mass you wont get an interaction field of gluons less than 1 ev

Why does the particle keep changing ? Sounds to me a bunch of guesswork. How many pages spent on trying to determine what is meant by SU(3) atom. If it's just gluons why didn't the author simply state a gluon field to begin with... Though you would still need quarks for the gluons to mediate. So actually doesn't solve the issue. Formula already provided for the field strength between two or more quarks without quarks field strength is zero.

The million dollar prize is still available for Yang-Mills mass gap lmao

Glad we don't have to cover the distinction between real and virtual particles you have that part correct. +1

It's also a thread I gave up on getting the notion the convection of simultaneity loses any practicality in curved space-time. So it's essentially only applicable to Maximally symmetric spacetimes such as Minkowsii. You can consider the local vs global ramifications on that. At the OP the norm of the length is not the same as the norm of a vector Length alone won't include changes in direction Ie rotations acceleration due to change in direction as opposed to boosts change in magnitude of velocity.

Mediator particles are bosons so have no degeneracy pressure and yes you already learning. The reason I recommend learning valence first is to understand the significance of the outer shell before getting into ionization of hydrogen. Simplest isotope proton has positive charge which attracts negative charge the electron no neutron. H^1 Deuterium case has a neutron.H^2 Tritium case H^3 has 2 neutrons Latter 2 cases are produced through ionization and not fusion.

Degeneracy applies to all fermionic systems via the Pauli-exclusion principle. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_degeneracy_pressure Above is a simpler case but yes allies as well to quarks. To answer in the case of hydrogen your better off starting with deuterium which is a simpler case We have to be careful here as hydrogen has different isotopes and I should have specified deuterium above https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium It would be easier to understand how deuterium forms by examining valence from chemistry as a starting point. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valence_(chemistry)#:~:text=Hydrogen has only one valence,has an incomplete outer shell.

It's quite similar to the Yang Mills mass gap problem which is off topic but thought I would mention it formally connecting that under geometric terms is quite formal and tricky. Well above the nature of this thread.

For me it's cold when your spit freezes before it hits the ground lol.

Here is another detail to consider. Photon polarization already exists and can be shown through the Maxwell equations as the primary basis. In QM they make use of this. For example parametric downconversion relies on photon polarization for a huge range of experiments involving entsnglement where the polarization filter seperates the polarization waves from monochromatic light. Here is the mathematical basis (step by step) including a useful mathematica program. https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~suzuki/QuantumMechanicsFiles/2-1_Photon_polarization.pdf These polarization relations are also used in QM/QFT for charge conjugation involving photons/antiphotons where the charge conjugation relationship distinguishes whether or not a photon is a photon or antiphoton based on its polarization helicity. So how will your theory work under the above ?

Yeah whatever you say pick any particle to particle interaction under the SU(3) descriptive the orders magnitude will still be wrong. I did those calculations on systems without interactions just scalar particle fields. You include interactions that 10^{123} will still be wrong. Pick any interacting system with that number value go ahead do the math on it. Go ahead give your system a single eV value for each SU(3) atom. You certainly can't have interactions without particles so good luck with that one.....

There is no wrongs facts involved one can also use the full energy momentum relationship to include the possibility of massless particles. However the author specifies a state where there are no massless particles in his first 3 pages. In particular the portion he entered the particle data group constraint as a calculated mass term due to U(1) specifically stating verbally as well. I already pointed out that earlier numerous times. It's specifically the QED langrangian in simplified form. I also pointed out he defined a Hermitean system which that is fine However as I mentioned he never extracted the relevant terms related specifically isolating the longitudinal waveform components which would be needed to apply to Meissner effect. Simply including the generalized QED langrangian isn't useful in any manner. In QFT anytime you have a specific interaction of any form it will have its own Langrangian. It is after all the probabilistic path of least action which is the multiple field momentum terms. Those equations motion or vector component equivelence are literally used for all quantum interactions. One could Alternatively use derivatives the results would be the same. As they are equivalent methodologies integrals However works extremely well for wavefunctions. The huge advantage is all particles always follow the path of least action regardless of scattering event or not. You may recall Swansont and others have mentioned the lack of calculations as well. PS you can perform the calculation yourself with just the mass of the lightest quark. You will still have the same orders of magnitude error margin. Try it at 2 MeV for say a hypothetical monopole quark system. In mainstream for compliance to acknowledge the unlikely hood of that use the lightest meson value. Won't matter it's the 10^{123} value that's the issue for number of SU(3) atoms. You can use the lightest particle with a mass term or even massless photons that number is still too high. I know I mentioned the Observable universe number of photons at BB being 10^90. Previously this thread within the first couple of pages if I recall Part of the reason to constantly mention Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac throughout the thread.

How do you mean ? A little clarity might help.

The universe wouldn't even be able to expand to begin with the potential energy (mass) exceeds the kinetic energy terms of radiation by far to great a factor. That can be shown through the scalar field equations of state or alternately a matter only universe with no radiation via critical density formula which prior to discovery of the cosmological constant gives the density to of an expanding universe to switch to collapsing. (It was derived as a matter only solution to begin with ) using GR and Jean's instability. I don't know about anyone else but this paper is nonsense the primary mistake was not performing any calculations plain and simple. Including introductory level cosmology or intro level physics.

I decided to do a bit of calculations The observable Universe mass using Critical density is estimated to be \[10^{53} kg.\] So using \(10^{123}\) protons at 936 MeV The corresponding mass is \[1.669 ×10^{96}\] kg Talk about a HUGE mismatch lol thought I would share that. I seriously hope the author isn't using protons or neutrons the theory would automatically be invalid simply on that calculation. There simply put absolutely no way possible to solve the cosmological constant problem with such a large mismatch none whatsoever superconductivity or not. It's literally impossible with 10^123 protons or neutrons Anyone want to try simply multiply 936 MeV times 10^{123} then convert to Kg with e=mc^2

The worse part is I know the mathematics behind every theory that's been mentioned. 35 to 40 years of continous study teaches a lot. So one can only imagine what these condensending tones sound like to me lmao 🤣 😂 😆 😅 Take Maxwell Boltzmann for example SUSY QFT and All apply it. It existed prior to all the above. It's been integrated into all the above. That's the understanding one gains when they sit down and study the mathematics of a given theory.

You can believe what you want about physics here is a little trivia for you it doesn't make any difference whether your describing a system using SUSY or QFT or even classical physics. Every theory must comply with observational evidence. Having \(10^{123}\) protons in our universe exceeds All observational evidence for the mass/energy of the observable universe. Thst detail trumps any theory that states otherwise. Plain and simple. If you ran that mass term through the FLRW matter dominant equations the very universe would collapse. No theory becomes mainstream without rigorous testing via experimental evidence.