Mordred

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.

As someone who is an accredited theoretical physicist I can tell you with absolute certainty no theory that doesn't apply those main stream physics will ever work.. That is the reality and I've seen ppl try for over 35 years its never worked out for them. Nor would you be able to give me a single example where it has.

Well unfortunately in the case of the quantum harmonic oscillator I should be able to directly take the equivalent creation/annihilation operators used to describe the same mathematics describing the vacuum catastrophe in the article and directly calculate the number density of particles. That's a detail that's in an introductory level QED textbook The methodology used (volume ) is only has validity under the assumption of a fermion not its range of interaction which is the range of the strong nuclear force. The method I mentioned preserves the energy/mass conservation budget. Using strictly volume wouldn't If your interested in the above method let me know and I will be more than happy to post the method I just described here. That's the part that makes question the article. How can anyone understand the QED equation to show photon decoupling but know what I just described.

Excellent keep that in mind when it comes to Cosmology. It will help understand how expansion is a thermodynamic process that involves how the standard model of particles can affect the expansion rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) I already gave you a couple of articles better detailing the relations in the above link. Those equations of state were determined by thinking of those particles being in a box and how they interact with the box walls and other particles in the same box. In that regard they were treated in the same manner as an ideal gas used in engineering applications of which Studiot is quite knowledgeable on. Much of the mathematics of engineering and Cosmology have very similar relations. (Recall those terms boundary conditions ?) Same idea another term is partition/partition function or Parton but confined to a single wavelength. Here is another good site of exercises and video lectures all free https://www.khanacademy.org/search?search_again=1&page_search_query=Cosmology

No nature loves complexity. Everything in our universe was already in the container and the container is getting bigger over time. Aka expansion.

It's better to think of the Observable universe as a closed container to better comprehend any ideal gas law treatments. It's not really a closed system but due to the speed limit that approximation is appropriate. Here for your interest this is one example of a Dark matter detector in Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawell_Underground_Physics_Laboratory Closest you will get to your bucket lol. One of the reasons I'm glad you picked up on the particle are field excitations is that it makes it far easier to understand weakly interactive particles. For example a neutrino can pass through a 1000 lightyears of lead without a single interaction. That is extremely unlikely if particles were little bullets. You have neutrinos passing through your body even as we speak but don't worry they have zero effect on your body or health

Absolutely as long as you recognize anything involving QM or QFT will involve probability and probability functions

Well let's take an example a particle accelerator accelerates say protons to collide with other protons. Those collisions produce other other particles but you don't really know what you will end up getting. The best you can predetermine is the probabilistic likelyhood of which particles will get produced. Homogeneous and isotropy may or may necessarily apply you can have inhomgeneous and anistropic configurations as well it depends on the fields involved. Impossible space is simply a volume not a substance spacetime is just a volume where time is given dimensionality of length through the interval (ct) DM is far too diffuse in mass density and we don't even know what comprises DM to begin with

Breit Wigner references https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485 Cross section for specific processes https://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/reviews/rpp2010-rev-cross-section-formulae.pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1a8f4d739a9c49f16f562bd2751d6b7d5339e3e4

So your using a densitomer for detection correct ? I take it your algorithm isn't applying any other algorithm other than what you described briefly above. Have you considered incorporating Hume-Hothery rules to help narrow down possible alloy configurations ? Or other methods of narrowing down possible configurations such as alloy conductivity? This may prove useful in narrowing down computations

Glad you find field treatments enlightening and enjoyable as far as why all electrons for example are identical no matter you examine them or any particular particle type. We simply do not the reason for that we simply know all evidence shows that.. As far as what particles can be created from a given scatterring process those involve several conservation laws. Conservation of baryon number, flavor, color, isospin, lepton number, energy, momentum Particles don't know what to become it's more a case of the consequence of those above laws as to what particles being created is possible due to the scatterring process involved.

Glad you had better luck than I did. My area had cloud cover over the weekend I was hopeful doing the evening when it looked like be clearing up.. Unfortunately by the time it got dark enough had roughly 75 percent overcast with high enough winds I couldn't keep my 10 " Skywatcher Dobsonian telescope stable enough the brief time I caught a glimpse. Hopefully I can catch it another night lol

very cool I am hoping to catch a glimpse of it as well. I already have my telescope loaded in my vehicle but its still too bright out where I am at

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