Mordred

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2778290 OK I've been examining this article a bit closer trying to figure out how the volume element of the SU(3) atom the paper specifies the SU(3) atom with a range of 10^{15} meters. This is identical to the range of the strong force mediated by gluons. It doesn't include the EM interaction nor the weak force interactions associated with quarks. It also specifies this occurs at a threshold where no massless particles exist. However the problem I have with this is that the range of a force is determined by two factors. The mean lifetime of the mediator particle and the particles momentum term. "an energy threshold below which no massless particle exists " page 4 of above article. So if this threshold were somehow reached how can any atom or nucleon continue to exist and how can any mediation of the standard model that occur involving massless particles. this makes no sense to me every interaction we see today involving qluons or photons would no longer occur in the same manner as that would lead to conservation of mass energy violations of the baryon octet. the volume would also change and no longer be 10{-15} meters assuming its using gluons as they are somehow stable with a mass term being stable then the range of the SU(3) atom assuming its describing gluons would end up being infinite. If the photon were to acquire mass yet somehow remain stable you would end up with Lorentz invariance violations not compatible with GR itself. from article relevant equations for the above in terms of the photon symmetry break acquiring mass equation 4 \[\chi=\bar{\psi}_e\psi_e\] equation 5 \[\mathcal{L}_\chi=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \chi)^2-\mu^2\chi^2-\lambda \chi^4+e^2\chi^2A_\mu A^\mu\] equation 6 \[\langle \chi\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{2\omega}}\] results in photon mass equation 7 \[m_\gamma=e\langle\chi\rangle \le 10^{-18} ev\] if this had occurred photons having mass would no longer travel at c as no particle with mass can travel at c. secondly should the photon acquire mass \[\frac{1}{2}m_\gamma^2 A^\mu A_\mu\] then gauge symmetry is violated hence by gauge invariance it is forbidden and not be able to be a gauge theory under U(1) That last part is covered in QED.

May I suggest we examine the OP paper under two seperate categories. The old cosmological constant problem as per the vacuum catastrophe specifically why the error was so high for the calculated value. As opposed to the new cosmological constant problem of why is the measured value so close to zero. Doing this may help make better sense of the OP paper. I should have time this evening and tomorrow to add some mathematical detail for each latter applying Higgs.

Welcome aboard @azakv

I believe I may have found something that may prove useful in terms of the Meissner effect. It took considerable digging to find something applicable to the Meissner effect with regards to the different symmetry groups. https://sethna.lassp.cornell.edu/pubPDF/meissner.pdf I still don't agree that it would resolve the cosmological constant problems for much the same reasons as you also noted. I'm still digging around looking for decent articles to get more detail on the Meissner-Higgs effect the link above mentions most of the articles I've encountered are specifically condensed matter physics via Anderson-Higgs. This one isn't bad in so far as it contains missing details not included in the OP article https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106070 It actually addresses one of the questions I had asked earlier . Though it doesn't provide an effective equation of state the details in that last article can readily be used to determine an effective equation of state. However the problem still remains how to apply the needed boundary conditions to an ill defined SU(3] atom ? From last article "and the photon becomes massive" I know I've seen this examination before if I recall we had a discussion a few years ago on a Hubble bubble article that involved a potential phase transition that has not occurred yet but is mathematically viable where the Higgs field gains couplings to photons.

So what your saying is throw away all mainstream physics to allow this paper to work is that it? The point is that you apply all mainstream physics to any physics theory you don't randomly toss away the parts that don't agree with a paper.

No I'm not how one calculates the number density of particles of a field involves two specific equations. Bose-Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac- statistics. If you take the effective degrees of freedom of for example photons you would apply the first equation. However if it's a fermion you apply the second equation. That isnt numerology for the above method this is something the article in question cannot do as it hasn't defined an SU(3) atom. The above method is the main stream method for any particle count estimation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_statistics#:~:text=In quantum statistics%2C Bose–Einstein,energy states at thermodynamic equilibrium. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi–Dirac_statistics

Integer numbers are whole numbers, fractions is a rational number There are actually peer reviewed literature on a dark particle sector that includes this possibility though for the time being lacks any observational evidence

It is is numerology when it doesn't apply any boundary conditions without the relevant proof of how those boundary conditions are being applied. Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles for the entirety of the SM model of particles. That estimation is based of the number density of photons using the Bose-Einstein statistics at 10^{-43} seconds so the 10^{123} value would entail conservation of energy mass violation. Lol keep it coming love the childishness ( little forewarning though one can lose their ability to use the reputation system.) Our forum has banned certain members in the past of their ability to use that system.)

Agreed on that

D Really how so ? Do you have a professional peer review article (not the paper under discussion) showing this ? Lmao for the record I really don't care how many negative rep points one throws my way when it comes to applying main stream physics to some paper or article. The reputation system means absolutely nothing to me. Edit: in point of detail that reputation system is easily abused beyond its intended purpose

It still doesn't provide the necessary details to do so. That's the point I have been trying to get across to you. The quantum harmonic oscillator equations that the article contains only has the degrees of freedom akin to a spring in motion at each coordinate that is the \[E=\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\] That the quantum harmonic oscillator describes. That equation doesn't encapsulate the relevant details to be applied to an SU(3) atom it doesn't include any of the additional degrees of freedom that would be required to describe any quantum harmonic uncertainty for such an atom. You would need to apply that equation to all the interactions via its relevant Greens functions under Fourier transformations. Let's try a rudimentary explanation to proton involves numerous different fields. Everyone can agree to this. Higgs fields (actually contains 4 fields) Em fields Strong force fields Weak force fields Now apply the above equation to each

The other problem that I see is that if one were to tally up the frequency modes and perform a frequency summation of the modes for SU(3) gauge interactions and apply the formula that led to the vacuum catastrophe then one would invariably end up with a far higher orders of magnitude error margin than those contained in the article. The article never did apply those formulas to any particular group in terms of its frequency modes

That's something I do not see within the article. What is precisely an SU(3) atom ???? SU(3) being a gauge group would use the effective degrees of freedom that would require something akin to the Gell-Mann matrices Which by itself isn't enough to describe a proton particularly if one were to say apply the CKMS mass mixing matrix to the protons mass terms you require U(1), SU(2) as well as SU(3) for the relevant Higgs, Dirac and Yukawa couplings. SU(3) wouldn't even provide the relevant details to apply Breit Wigner to the cross section and its the Breit Wigner that is used for resonant particles to determine the particles mean lifetime. So try as I might I cannot even begin to visualize what a SU(3) atom would even behave like. How so as a particles mean lifetime is described by Breit Wigner for its decay rate ? Here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485

I am more than aware of precisely how the vacuum catastrophe occurred I have also seen far far better examinations than anything presented here on a viable solution. That paper isn't one of them. At no point have I lost sight of the goal.

ah now I understand here is a little secret a dimension is nothing more than an effective degree of freedom or independent variable or other mathematical object. It is not some alternate reality. take spacetime 4d { ct,x,y,z} each term is a dimension as each term can change value without any dependency on any other term. That is all a dimension is in physics. A dimension can also be strictly mathematical without any physical reality just as you can have strictly mathematical spaces such as phase space or momentum space. These are simply graphs fundamentally The entire standard model of particles via the Euler Langrangian is nothing more than the effective path integrals with probability statistics which unfortunately is necessary but that's a simple reality that the quantum regime has shown us

I'm assuming your the author as your the one defending the paper. I am showing the factors the author never looked at in his paper. The gauge groups the author refers to involve the equations of motion for each group. those groups have scalar, vector and spinor field relations not included in his paper. That paper only has first order terms without any vectors involving nothing more than scalar quantities. Now you understand exactly why I do not accept any validity in that paper. It s poorly examined.

so you can't do as I asked to explain how this statement is possible got it. I provided the U(1) gauge for you and you cannot take that and produce a spin zero Langrangian equation of motion

you claim to produce using the Meissner effect to explain the cosmological constant the last equation is the equation of state for Lambda how can you not see the relevancy if you knew what you were tallking about or had actually understood how it would apply to QFT ? would you like me to produce the spin zero statistics for spin zero in Langrangian form or have you done that already ? would you prefer to work from the SU(3) langrangian ? I can provide that as well or the SU(2) ? it is the Langrangian equations of motion for radiation or matter that is used to determine the effective equations of state for radiation and matter

I don't think you fully understand what I am asking if you can do what I am about to ask then you might have something. here is the U(1) Langragian Single Gauge field U(1) [latex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu A_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu[/latex] we can use the Meissner effect Langrangian given by equation 11 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07414 produce spin statistics zero to satisfy w=-1 via \[w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2-V\dot{\theta}}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2+V\dot{\theta}}\] where w=-1

Are right let's assume the Meissner effect is the cause of the cosmological constant. The cosmomogical constant became dominant roughly when the universe was 7 billion years old . Prior to the CMB Why do we not see any evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB which directly involves Compton scatterrings ? Or any evidence of any nearby charged plasma of superconductivity ? Let alone any evidence of Lambda having a spin statistics suitable for a charged field ? Mainstream physics treatments Lambda would have a spin statistics zero spin (0) specifically a scalar field with no associated vector field or spinor field. No one is arguing the Meissner effect isn't viable. It's your application on a universe scale that is the issue

From that last article "remains intact near zero Kelvin, forming the foundational atoms of vacuum energy". For your Meissner effect. So the answer when you convert the GeV to Kelvin for our entire universe history Has never occurred with regards to that papers SU(3) atom. At no point in our universe history has that process occurred as 2.73 Kelvin is still too hot.

Why are all your papers from the same author can you not provide a decent reference done by any other author ? Has it not occurred to you I don't trust anything written by that author as a valid reference ?

No you haven't look at the temperature history of the early universe if it helps you can simply inverse the scale factor. At no point in our universes temperature history will you have anything close to producing the transition temperature for the Meissner effect.

Great you can start with calculating what temperature 10^(15) GeV is Given that 1 electronvolt=11600 Kelvin. Exactly what temperature do youvrequire for the Meisnner effect ? At what point in the early universe temperature evolution would meet that condition ?

Fine but that burden of proof is in your court. You need to mathematically prove your case and not rely on other questionable works. What you just described is not what is described by main stream physics hence why this thread is moved. You will need far more than just 10 or less formulas to prove your case . Have you for example factored in the weighted roots of the SU(3) group for its weighted probability currents ? Have you looked at the individual phase amplitudes concerning a particles cross section ? Have you done any calculations using the Hamiltons for each group ? You haven't even been able to describe yourself in mathematical detail what an SU(3) atom is to begin with so how can anyone determine any validity ?? The weighted roots of a group specifically detail the symmetries of said group. I still don't understand how the detail The universe started at a hot dense state escapes you it has been cooling down due to expansion ever since. If you do the conversion 10^(19) GeV will be extremely close to the Planck temperature at the opposite end of the temperature scale than that of a Bose Einstein condensate