Mordred

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

You might want to use a textbook instead of that paper. A quark for example cannot apply strictly SU(3) gauge to describe its interactions but requires the three gauge groups to describe its interactions SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) the quark generations are also involved all quarks do not drop out of thermal equilibrium at the same time nor does each member of each generation. When an atom drops out of thermal equilibrium one can deploy the Saha equations... Hydrogen drops out later than deuterium for example.

You do understand the concept that SU(3) is a gauge group and not any individual particle or atom correct ? Is that not somehow relevant ? Each particle can use different gauge gauge groups including group combinations. Each particle drops out of thermal equilibrium at different times that depends on each particles cross section for the temperature where they will drop out. Which depends on the expansion rate as well.

Can you provide any formula or calculstion specifically your own any derivative specifically describing an SU(3) atom. Can you provide any equation of state specific to an SU(3) atom ?

Your paper you posted here only had less than 10 formulas All of which didn't show any additional details showing the relevant equations for the Meisner effect. As I mentioned your paper does not have the needed details without searching other literature to piece together what your thinking.

Yes but that isn't a supercooled state for the meissner effect particularly since the universe is charge neutral

Electroweak symmetry breaking is the opposite range of the temperature scale from absolute zero. The early universe temperatures are far higher than today Roughly 10^16 GeV it is trivial to convert GeV to Kelvin so why are you stating absolute zero for any symmetry breaking ? I also shouldn't need to go through dozens of links to get details that should be inclusive in your article. The article you posted had only the more common quantum harmonic calculation that does not include the phases requiring SU(3). At best only requires U(1). The Snyder portion you simply had the computations. In essence You haven't got your own calculations involved for how your determining the SU(3) atoms included in article which is essentially forcing the reader to search your huge link history trying to guess how your putting it together. In so far as the critical density that value varies over time it was far higher in the past than today. That will affect your second equation if I recall in the denominator terms. The critical density formula uses the Hubble parameter which is also far higher in the past than the value today. So you may want to look into that detail. The reason I asked about the equation of state is that you need to confirm your theory can keep that value constant as per observation evidence of the Lambda term.

Your welcome its often tricky to see beyond the mathematics so we're glad to help. Lol I lost count on how many times getting lost in the math and lose sight of what the math is representing so can readily understand the difficulty

So from the peer review article mentioned above which only has summation equations one must know what elements are likely included in the allow and the density of each alloy. As that peer review article is extremely short It didn't indicate anything beyond that I didn't see any methodology of detection Am I correct on the above ?

Your looking at Migl's statement wrong. Let's use an simple everyday world example. Let's use an electrical circuit. Take a multimeter on a wire conducting some current. If you take the leads to two point is on the wire itself you cannot measure a voltage. However if you add some load via say a resistor you can. That is an everyday example of potential difference. Now let's apply that to our spacetime field. If every coordinate on that field has precisely the same potential energy (potential energy is energy due to location under field treatment) then gravity effectively is zero. However if there is potential energy differences between coordinate A and coordinate B such as due to a center of mass then you have a gravity term in Newton terms the gradient. Now under GR using the full equation \[E^2=(pc^2+m_o c^2)^2\] When applied to every coordinate of a field you immediately recognize that both massless particles as well as massive particles can affect the geometry. However the equation also includes their momentum terms so their vectors or spinors also are involved. Under the stress energy momentum tensor the energy density is the \(T_(00)\) component. The diagonal components, (orthogonal components are the Maximally symmetric components) However there are off diagonal components stress, strain,and vorticity these components have symmetry to gas and fluid flow ie through a pipe for everyday examples. So take a vector field of particles each particle follows its own geodesic those geodesics can converge or diverge from one another as they do so they generate non linearity as they induce curvature terms. When curvature occurs you are naturally inducing acceleration (direction change is also part of acceleration its not just the change in the velocity magnitude) Edit cross posted with Markus were both providing the same answer (Stress energy momentum tensor relations of a multi particle field). To make things more complicated each particle of the above field example is interacting with other particles so now our field now has continous changes in velocity. We can now only average all the numerous curved paths (linearization of a nonlinear system) which is never exact. The above demonstrates why a tensor field is required. As mentioned a tensor field includes magnitude, vector and spinor relations. The same applies to a curve you can only average the length of the curve. The extrenums (Maxima and minima) a function is always a graph (but not all graphs are functions for a graph to have a function it must pass a horizontal and vertical test (off topic). https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calcI/minmaxvalues.aspx#:~:text=The function will have an,domain or at relative extrema.

Yes you already stated that above

May be helpful to include the peer review article which includes the related mathematics and methodology. In case you wish to post those related mathematics here (recommended) the latex structure uses the \[ latex\*] tag for new line inline \(latex\*) the * is simply there to prevent activation.

I prefer reading the arxiv copy if others feel the same https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00856 The spectral densities involving luminosity to mass functions will obviously be stronger than the CGM near the Galactic Bulge however the area covered by the CGM is far far greater so although the density may be higher the total mass distribution could very well be greater in the CGM region than in the Galaxy Bulge and disk regions. I would have to study the article again to confirm

Your better off applying the energy momentum relation \[E^2=(pc)^2+(m_oc^2)^2\] This gives a better understanding of how massless particles are also involved (first term RHS) and massive particles (invariant mass second term RHS) are involved as energy being a property doesn't exist on its own. It is this equation that the Einstein field equations apply as well as the equation that gets integrated into the Klein-Gordon equation of QFT. While the BB model does not describe how the universe began all equations related to GUT break down at the singularity condition at \(10^{-43}\) seconds after BB. This includes those of GR, the standard model , QFT and the FLRW metric.

lets put it this way from what I read via the Research-gate copy as I don't care to join Inspire are far too few to really describe the theory in the article nor many of its claims. I didn't see any copy that I could confirm is peer reviewed. The copy I read is a preprint. The math inclusive in the article is a more common treatment of the cosmological problem and brief descriptive's of other commonly know equations including its mentions of Snyder's Algebra I honestly don't see any equations specific to the papers theory. ! Moderator Note The article itself has far too many claims not supported within the article in terms of any calculations specific to its claims to be considered an article within the rules required for mainstream Physics . Please review the requirements and rules for the speculation forum given in the pinned threads above.

lets detail the cosmological constant problem then you can show me how your paper solves this problem I will keep it simple for other readers by not using the Langrene for the time being and simply give a more algebraic treatment. ( mainly to help our other members). To start under QFT the normal modes of a field is a set of harmonic oscillators I will simply apply this as a bosons for simple representation as energy never exists on its own \[E_b=\sum_i(\frac{1}{2}+n_i)\hbar\omega_i\] where n_i is the individual modes n_i=(1,2,3,4.......) we can identify this with vacuum energy as \[E_\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_i\] the energy of a particle k with momentum is \[k=\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4}\] from this we can calculate the sum by integrating over the momentum states to obtain the vacuum energy density. \[\rho_\Lambda c^2=\int^\infty_0=\frac{4\pi k^2 dk}{(3\pi\hbar)^3}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4})\] where \(4\pi k^2 dk\) is the momentum phase space volume factor. the effective cutoff can be given at the Planck momentum \[k_{PL}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^3}{G_N}}\simeq 10^{19}GeV/c\] gives \[\rho \simeq \frac{K_{PL}}{16 \pi^2\hbar^3 c}\simeq\frac{10^74 Gev^4}{c^2(\hbar c)^3} \simeq 2*10^{91} g/cm^3\] compared to the measured Lambda term via the critical density formula \[2+10^{-29} g/cm^3\] method above given under Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology by Ta-Pei Cheng page 281 appendix A.14 (Oxford Master series in Particle physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology) So can you show how your paper addresses this in more detail. As your not familiar with this forums latex structure use \[latex\*] for new line \(latex\*) for inline I included the * simply to prevent activation. that way you can post your equations from the article here where needed as well as answer any other questions where the math is needed

Interesting conjecture the paper itself seems to be rather lacking in certain details. For example I couldn't see anything I could use to determine an effective equation of state for the cosmological term itself for any means of testability using observation. If I'm missing that could you provide how an effective of state would be derived from the article. I also didn't see how one applies thermodynamic relations such as any pertinent temperature contribution via the Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac statistics so I can only assume what you refer to as an SU(3) atom is and of itself not a particle contribution. It also surprises me you didn't include the relevant equations to the quantum harmonic oscillator in momentum space which led to the vacuum catastrophe. That detail is described under the minimally coupled scalar field langrene.

Your welcome if your familiar with latex and using latex for your math expressions use \[ latex\*] for seperate line and \(latex\*) for inline just remove the * from the last bracket as I put them there to prevent activation. I figured you might like the paper as your example has excellent similarity to the example within the paper.

Why do I get the feeling this is more an attempt to bash others rather than discuss which is a preferable application ? The choice of which to apply depends on which observer so what is the issue here ?

The only information one can gain from measuring GW waves is the mass of the source, the direction and momentum. For composition one would invariably need to use the EM field via spectography. Measuring direction is actually interesting as one can use the +× polarizations and the angles recieved of those polarizations. The other two polarizations are traceless. The transverse gauge is the changes in length while the traceless gauge is the strain components. Given via the perturbation matrix on a Minkoskii background due to its extreme weak influence. \[g_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+h_{\mu\nu}\] Which is also used for the weak field limit. The perturbation tensor being after the plus sign. It's common to seperste any field into other fields in the above case the local metric to the wave being the Minkowskii tensor the global is the LHS of the equal sign. So in the above case we have three fields global, local and perturbation each field above being a tensor field which is a combination of scalar, vector and spinor relations. Renormalizing gravity also employs the same separation of spacetime into seperate fields as described above. Hence you will find the above equation in articles on renormalization. This is just an FYI the Minkowskii metric or spacetime is one of three Maximally symmetric spacetimes the other two being De-Sitter and anti-Desitter. How a Maximally spacetime is determined is via killing vectors to determine the non vanishing and vanishing terms of a metric. The easiest to calculate has the least non vanishing terms. Ie Maximally symmetric. We renormalize gravity in a Maximally symmetric spacetime we can't when it's not. To put it simply. Markus would also likely point out the Ricci curvature of a Maximally symmetric spacetime is zero. Those same preliminaries involving parallel transport are also involved in the killing vectors.

You really seem to have a reading comprehension problem or you like to imply what isn't intended. The lounge is not a place to discuss a physics topic I described the distinction of what belongs in mainstream physics as opposed to Speculation. I did not imply your thread automatically belonged in Soeculation hence why I let one of the full mods make that determination. Had I felt it belonged in Speculation I could have moved it there myself as Resident experts do in fact have that ability. ! Moderator Note This is just to demonstrate Resident experts do have some moderation abilities. Just so we're 100 percent clear on that The point being Resident experts are members of the moderation team. Pointing out more appropriate forums is part of my duties. When it comes to that it is a Resident experts primary duty.

@HopDavid would you like you the full system set of equations for the above. https://jfuchs.hotell.kau.se/kurs/amek/prst/15_lapo.pdf Your system albeit without names is directly applied in that article.

The centripetal force will point towards the barycenter. Which is the effective center of mass. Both Pluto and Charon will orbit the Barycenter. However you have no mass term for Voldemort so I assume the mass tetm at Valdemorts location is insignificant. The outward force (fictitious force felt by Valdemort ) in his non inertial frame is the Centrrifugal force.

Have you applied vectors to \[f=\frac{mv^2}{r}\] Yet in terms of my last post ? Or are you still looking into the distinctions of why that equation does not describe a fictitious force as opposed to \[f=m\omega^2 r\] If it helps use the 1/r^2 relation to gravity. Via \[f=\frac{Gm_1m_2}{r^2}\] Then look at your Langrene example above If your claiming mainstream physics is wrong then it does belong in Speculation. If it's simply not understanding the distinction then it belongs in mainstream.

Ok believe what you like. Doesn't change my reply if your going to lecture others you might want to use correct terminology. Particularly when it comes to properly understanding the difference between inertia and acceleration. It is after all clearly defined in any classical textbook. For that matter most classical textbooks don't bother explaining centrifugal force for the reasons Swansont mentioned above. Let's start with the statement Valdemort is centrifugal force. Now ask yourself under Newtons laws of inertia which direction is a force applied to cause an acceleration let's start there. PS you might also take last question and ask does that describe a fictitious force ? Might help you make the connection between inertial vs non inertial observers doing the measurement.