Mordred

Great, how does that help when the author doesn't show how he determined his conclusions ? I really don't understand why you don't grasp the author made no calculations. \[\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}\] this solves the cosmological constant problem do you believe me ?

Let me ask you a question. IF i handed you the entire Langrangian for the entire standard model and merely made claims from that Langrangian of say Oh this solves the cosmological constant problem without showing you how to extract the relevant variables and showing how it does so. Would you believe me ? The Standard model Langrangian is rigidly tested so its quite capable of doing so. However why would you believe me if I don't show precisely how it does so? This is the situation with the paper. It's no different Anyone can copy equations and throw them in an article with references. If your not showing precisely how your applying those equations it does absolutely no good. Cross posted with Swansont.

One other possibility as a reference for the image isnt provided it could also indicate the action due to path of least resistance via Euler-Langrangian with the straightline arrow indicating the mean average. I sometimes encounter similar diagrams in least action articles involving gravity. Typically used when describing infinitisimal variations as opposed to more classical treatments. However that's just a possibility without a reference to go by.

So you don't find it distracting trying to add theories not in the original paper to begin with ? The entire discussion of the holographic principle was a literal distraction as it's not in the OP paper. The OP paper had nothing more complex than a little QFT and QED that where it should have stayed. However everyone tried injecting other possibilities through other referenced articles. Forcing everyone to guess and make random assertions.

Perhaps you should reread the original comment. He mentioned other situations he has seen. He never suggested it was involved in this thread.

Langrange polynomial interpolation programming steps for Vandermonde https://people.clas.ufl.edu/kees/files/LagrangePolynomials.pdf

https://inis.iaea.org/collection/NCLCollectionStore/_Public/25/026/25026515.pdf \[d_L\rightarrow U^d_L d_L\] \[d_R\rightarrow U_R^d d_R\] \[u_L\rightarrow U_L^uu_L\] \[u_R\rightarrow U_R^uu_R\] \[\mathcal{L}=\frac{q_2}{\sqrt{2}}[W^+_\mu\bar{u}^i_L\gamma^\mu(V)^{ij}d^j_L+W^-_\mu\bar{d}^i_L\gamma^\mu(V^\dagger)^{ij}\mu^j_L\] \[v_{ckm}=\begin{pmatrix}1&0&0\\0&c_{23}&s_{23}\\0&-s_{23}&c_{23}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}c_{13}&0&s_{13}^{1\delta}\\0&1&0\\-s_{13}^{i\delta}&0&c_{13}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}c_{12}&s_{12}&0\\-s_{12}c_{12}&0\\0&0&1\end{pmatrix}\] \[\begin{pmatrix}c_{12}c_{13}&c_{12}c_{13}&s_{13}^{-i\delta}\\-s_{12}c_{23}-c_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}&c_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}s_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}&s_{23}c_{13}\\s_{12}s_{23}-c_{12}c_{23}s_{13}e^{i\delta}&-c_{12}s_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}-s_{12}c_{23}s_{12}e^{i\delta}&c_{23}c_{12}\end{pmatrix}\] \[s_{ij}=sin\theta_{ij}\] \[c_{ij}=cos\theta_{ij}\] \[ic=[Y_\mu y^\dagger_\mu ,Y_d Y^\dagger_d]=[U_\mu M^\dagger_\mu,U_d M^2_d U^\dagger_d]=U_\mu[M^2_\mu,VM^2_dV^\dagger]U^\dagger_\mu\] Vandermond formula needed for above for next step... Commutator of the Quark Mass Matrices in the Standard Electroweak Model and a Measure of Maximal CP Nonconservation C.Jarlskog https://kernel-cdn.niconi.org/2021-10-19/1634657105-497108-physrevlett551039.pdf https://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~sifakis/courses/cs412-s13/lecture_notes/CS412_12_Feb_2013.pdf Valndermonde polynomial interpolation for Langrange to reduce computations for curve fitting. https://orionquest.github.io/Numacom/lectures/interpolation.pdf

Try gauge gravity duality Specifically for SU(N) N = 4 Super Yang–Mills theory and type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S5, are identical and therefore describe the same physics from two very different perspectives. In particular, if the AdS/CFT conjecture holds, all the physics of one description is mapped onto all the physics of the other. That's what the conformal element of ads/cft is describing. So now I ask which article does Ashmed specifically apply this under a mathematical treatment without resorting to someone else's work ? Anyone care to take a stab at that ? What I am trying to do is give you a far better understanding of the holographic principle but that requires significant self study to grasp One cannot do that via a forum alone. Ok simple case Take any arbitrary system A and conform it to another system B both systems have a defined boundary so you must have some translation between system A and system B The conformal element... So take an SU(N) system and conform it to a Maximally symmetric anti-Desitter spacetime there are only 3 Maximally symmetric spacetimes known De-Sitter/anti-Desitter and Minkowskii. That is the Principle basis of the holographic principle and how its applied to quantum fields. So have you ever studied string theory which would be required ? Have you studied how some point like particle property can be mapped through a mathematical space via a function which is true in string theory ? what are the boundaries of a closed string vs an open string ? how is charge mapped for start and end points in string theory ? how can one understand how the holographic principle works in ADS/CFT if they can't answer those questions ? You have to study from the start of how the theory is developed rather than jumping to the end.... The most important part the physics of system A must be identical to the physics of system B In order to be conformed... If you want to understand String theory I suggest String theory Demystified by David McMahon its about the easiest textbook on String Theory I have encountered How am I confident the OP paper doesn't involve the holographic principle ? its simple the Langrangian forms he provided do not include any terms for SUSY. In essence the entire discussion on the holographic principle has been nothing more than trying to fit personal favorite theories into someone else's model. I recommend you don't rely on pop media coverage every theory always has competing theories that's all part of the scientific method. Those findings are not conclusive they merely hint at the possibility.

Clue given by Joigus (gauge gravity duality now try and find the duality for SU(3). Requirement above but also must produce Cooper pairs for Meissner effect. There is a particular key theory I want to see if the defenders can identify.

Your welcome a personal sidenote it was that very detail that got my dissertation on quintessence inflation to get invalidated wrong equation of state to observational evidence. It was written prior to WMAP using COBE dataset. A side note @MJ kihara the illusion statement you gave earlier was a Berkenstein descriptive so I cannot fault you on that. You cannot be faulted for something contained in peer review literature.

Slight correction it depends on how the vacuum is defined. If it's a vacuum with an equation of state other than w=-1 such as a quintessence vacuum it would dilute any vacuum with equation of state w=-1 such as the cosmological term does not. The rest of the above I agree with

My favorite is Penquinn diagrams for certain Feymann integrals.

The simplest article on holographic superconductors I could find is above in that quoted section the Langrangian it gives that will produce the superconducting Cooper pairs is \[\mathcal{L}=R+\frac{6}{L^2}-\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}-|\nabla_\phi-iq A\phi|^2-m^2|\phi^2\] R is the Ricci scalar \[F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\mu A_\nu-\partial_\nu A_\mu\] is the Maxwell field strength tensor \(\phi\) being the scalar with charge q and is related by the order parameter \(\langle \phi_b\rangle\) what the article describes is the superconductivity of the dual gravity boundary of the anti-Desitter spacetime and the conformal theory spacetime see Penrose diagrams. The anti-Desitter is constant negative curvature that is what defines the surface element boundary where the holographic superconductor can be applied. So I ask how is the author applying the above to the entire Universe ? I will let the defenders mathematically show how this is possible (ps there is a way and treatments doing so but I want the defenders to supply them ) https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/20-HolSC-SB2.pdf I'm not asking anyone to do their own calculations they may certainly do as I just did supply a reference pointing out the specified equations involved. why are they looking at BH's has to do with the EH and Hawking radiation the Blackbody temperature of an EH is colder than the blackbody temperature of the Universe. via \[T_H=\frac{\hbar c^3}{8\pi GM k_b}\]

It's not an illusion it's a mathematical methodology at dimensional reduction a means that's helpful to eliminate unwanted degrees of freedom to better examine specific processes. It's all the glamour kings that treat it as an illusion the metaphysics wannabe physicists. The ones that pay more attention to verbal descriptions than the mathematics. The same people that think higher dimensions past 4 is some alternative reality unperceived instead of an effective degree of freedom . Take ADS/CFT for example anti Desitter (Maximally symmetric spacetime) under conformal field treatment using string theory. String theory is conformsl doesn't use integrals it uses differential equations for curve fitting. GR is another conformal field theory. QFT is canonical it uses integrals. Both methodologies can describe precisely the same system with equal accuracy. Integrals are more useful for wavefunctions due to Fourier transformations. What ppl think are illusions is mathematical spaces that have zero physicality. Just as momentum space or phase space. Or branes for string theory. Specifically a graph of a given function. Ie a chart and when you multiple charts you need an atlas. Just as you need a transformation between graphs. Every physics treatment method uses the above in one fashion or another.

You can I already stated what one can learn the IR and UV limits of the SU(3) strong force that is the essence of studying the SU(3) gauge to understand its divergences at a wider range of temperatures. We study the high energy limits at particle accelerators we study the opposite range in condendates. My studies is the high end range as my specialty being early universe.

Lets take a simple example how many members are aware that all functions are graphs but not all graphs are functions? How do you test if a graph is a function ? I only know of a few members that would be able to answer that How would anyone understand a symmetry group without knowing how to apply vector algebra? It's impossible you need vector algebra you need to recognize what the components of a vector are. How to use vector algebra on inner outer and cross products of vectors prior to leaning what a one form or dual vector is to understand what a covariant or cobnteavariant vector is. Otherwise tensors will always be mysterious and if you can't understand tensors you won't understand symmetry groups. If someone doesn't have these skills they cannot compete with physicists that do these are prerequisite skills you need just to an undergrad course in physics.

In all honesty and undergrad could do a better job. Many of those equations merely look complicated. The equations in the OP paper are essentially first order terms. You recall that video Migl posted that stuff is taught within the first term of a cosmology related program and can be found in introductory textbooks. It did a better job than the paper. One doesn't calculate integrals, you derive the portions you require using something like the Feymann trick. You don't try to sum amplitudes of an integral you use the Cassimer trick. To ppl that never took variations of calculus of course integrals look nasty. Yet we have tools such as Feycalc through mathematic. In that entire paper not a single formula cannot be found in other references. Not a single equation literally there is zero evidence of the author doing his own math. It's all on the backbone of other ppls work. In point of detail it literally claimed to give mass by slapping in the particle datagroup constraint on photon mass yet claimed that as the photon gaining mass through symmetry breaking and ppl are defending that?? Are they blind or like being lied to I don't know I pointed that out a while ago but obviously some people don't know how to listen. Careful here a Bose-Einstein condensate is something producable in a lab. It's properties are well studied and are being studied. It's not something that our universe naturally produces unless you have environment significantly colder than our universe balckbody temperature. Careful here a Bose-Einstein condensate is something producable in a lab. It's properties are well studied and are being studied. It's not something that our universe naturally produces unless you have environment significantly colder than our universe balckbody temperature. Here is one such lab https://equs.org/aol It's not something that's occurring in outer space today. Our universe balckbody temperature 2.73 Kelvin is too hot. Lets put it this way our universe would have to be in heat death to naturally produce Bose-Einstein condensates throughout the universe on a universe global scale. Yes you can apply the holographic principle to those lab samples but not in the manner ppl tend to think of the holographic principle. \[SU(3)_L\otimes SU(3)_R\mathbb{Z}/2\] in String theory the boundary conditions is the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions same as those in a calculus textbook. That's the boundaries essentially though there are so many variations of lattice network treatments they are often under different names that's why I posted several textbook Style Articles on condensates earlier this thread. Has anyone bothered to read them ? Here they are again... Many someone will read them this go around. Lol if our universe were that cold to produce condensates on a global scale black holes themselves would start evaporating via Hawking radiation. That is a very evident proof that the \[10^{123}\] is easily falsifiable. Want to really learn physics study Calculus and statistical mechanics by the time you get through 2 or 3 textbooks you will understand physics better than 90 percent of our forums members.

Yeah apparently people want to defend something poorly written to begin with. I don't know about anyone else I would be disgusted with myself if I had written that paper regardless of the quality of other references but that's just my opinion. If that paper is an indication of his best work it needs improvement. I've examined undergrad dissertation practice papers of better quality.

Yes but then ask yourself why is there so many confusing statements instead of including the related mathematics within the same paper instead of trying to advertise every paper he has ever written ? For example why wasnt the QCD langrangisn included for SU(3) instead of just putting in the QED langrangian? Why isn't his SU(3) atoms professionally defined in the paper so there is zero chance of confusion ? Attaching the term atom to SU(3) is something I have never seen in any other professionally written paper. SU(3) gauge group absolutely SU(3) atom never before As stated previously within the paper I do not see a single calculation or derivative that is his own What really drives me up the wall is when the author threw in the particle data group constraint for the photon and claimed it was coupled to the Higgs field as acquiring mass but only showing the QED langrangian without any Higgs term

That may very well be true but its not included in the article under discussion. I noted that numerous times on page one. The discussion is the OP paper itself we shouldn't have to piece meal it together through dozens of other literature. His later or earlier articles may very well be excellent but the discussion is the OP paper. I'm not about to go scrounching and searching however many papers the author wrote or didn't write to justify the OP paper.

Snyders spacetime can be applied to the quantum oscillator certainly but it doesn't do anything for number density of particles. Here is the treatment https://arxiv.org/abs/1308.0673 For the harmonic oscillator under Snyder. How familiar are you with the terms Abelion vs non abelion ? In terms of symmetry groups as that is relevant to the opening paragraph of the above article.

Have you ever really studied quantum field theory the four momentum is applied everyone in this discussion is well aware of the spatial and time components. Doesn't make that 10^123 atoms correct by any stretch of the imagination. The holographic principle itself for SU(3) is separating SU(3) left handedness and SU(3) rightedness through z/2. Now what that means is matter and antimatter which the author doesn't even discuss So I'm really curious as to where your drawing your conclusions ? I'm quite familiar with Snyders metric it is not more fundamental than bose einsteins or Fermi dirac I'm quite familiar with Snyders metric it is not more fundamental than bose einsteins or Fermi dirac. It's not even describing the same thing

Lol part of the difficulties with the holographic principle is that Hoof't the originator intended its usage for cosmological horizons such as the BH event horizon. Ads/cft (anti Desitter/conformal field theory makes use of this. Nowadays it seems everyone is trying to somehow invoke the holographic principle it's largely becoming unrecognizable. Example holographic principle of consciousness or mind articles truthfully I have little to no interest in those. However that's just me as my time is spent on cosmological applications which obviously must include particle physics. In that regard they holographic principle is actually useful in dimensional reduction. A technique to help minimize calculations to something manageable. However pop media and metaphysics love to blow that simple aspect out of proportion. Example the universe as a hologram etc etc. Yet most of these conjectures cannot supply anything testable. Beyond its applications under Ads/cft or string theory I gave up trying to follow all these alternative theories simply don't have enough time to keep up with them

This article though doesn't fully describe the running of the coupling constant gives the formula for doing so see top 3 formulas https://people.frib.msu.edu/~witek/Classes/PHY802/QCD2.pdf The full treatments tend to be far far complex. Should give the idea that coupling strength will vary over a temperature range third formula down gives the resulting spacing between quarks. Now apply those relations to the condensed matter lattice network spacing and then you would be far more accurate than the OP article. Those are the formulas for SU(3) color gauge spacing in Lattice network treatment. However you wouldn't want that spacing throughout the observable universe itself too high a density.

One of the articles I posted earlier has the relevant mathematics of how temperature effects the effective range of the strong force. It's not as constant as one not a physicist would assume from common literature. I'm currently occupied but will detail it later when I get the time but the essence is that the range of the force is mediated by in the case of the strong force by two primary factors. The stability of the mediator particle and its momentum. So the range used in the article 10^{-15} meters is not constant at all temperature ranges. A large volume of literature will give the range based of the mediators momentum term but that's more an approximation This is the more common classical treatment using mass of pion 140 MeV/c^2 \[\rho= \frac{\hbar}{m c^2}\] This is the commonly known formula for getting the \( 10^{-15}\) meters range Now if you think about it temperature will influence momentum so near absolute zero ? The other factor is that the observable universe volume density to temperature relations would also vary as the mean average density changes with its volume. This is why I mentioned numerous times one should apply Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics for thr number density of particles