Mordred

Spacetime itself has nothing to do with SU(3) Spacetime is SO(3.1) and you cannot measure anything in spacetime without having something to measure it's just volume without other particle fields. With time given dimensionality of length via the Interval without other fields you can literally treat it as just space devoid of any mass energy term. In essence the Einstein vacuum devoid of any other particles including virtual which under QM is considered an impossibility. Yeah that operator zero being ground state zero not true zero.

There has certainly been similar ideas around the concept of eliminating quantum noise from other fields to focus on a specific field interaction is a fully valid idea. Obviously one of the better ways to accomplish this is through cooling to reduce quantum vibrational interference so there is nothing unheard of there. It was never the conceptual ideas I ever had an issue with. It's literally how it was handled and described by the authors paper. It's also why I consider this thread worthwhile to examine and spend a considerable amount of my personal time suggesting better treatments to shoot ideas on how to make it a fully usable professional peer review quality. Truthfully I wish I could directly talk to the author himself.

That was a point I was trying to get across but I prefer your overall descriptive to the manner I presented the problem which obviously went over everyone's heads +1

Lol back when I was first learning particle physics I recall how ugly all the different variations and equations were. So many different takes and different treatments that I often threw my hands up in absolute despair. One example was the sheer number of different virtual particles papers most of which you never hear about nowadays. Modern methods with its standardization are far more elegant. So I fully relate to your comment above. +1 I have read numerous papers where it's been questioned as to whether or not there was any real need to renormalize gravity or even treat it as a quantum field so that aspect has has been around for awhile however as you described what's new is keeping it stochastic in a full well connected treatment. For those not familiar with Sturm Liouville one of the better books/articles I've come across on it was Mathematical methods for Physicists by Arftken However this article is also pretty decent. https://jahandideh.iut.ac.ir/sites/jahandideh.iut.ac.ir/files/files_course/sturm-liouville_theory_and_its_applications.pdf

Detail I forgot above one of the reasons I chose two quarks was to see if you would make the connection to meson condensates. However apparently that was missed. Those Cooper Pairs previously mentioned by @studiot for example. https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/2/3/25 Ie BCS theory ring any bells ?

Nothing to out of the reasonable it will of course depend on those mathematics given the dimension definition I provided above. It does have familiarity with Roveilli"s Planck stars from your descriptive.

The article should be more clear on that as it applies its theory on a cosmological scale (global) particularly with the manner it tried relate volume to its SU(3) atoms and its Higgs references. If you ever examined Higgs as Cosmological constant papers you would understand where I'm coming from there. example here https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/eda33736-53b7-4db8-a1de-4fbe3871e4fa/content the equation of state it gives provides the same equation of state for Lambda w=-1 In that regards the VeV itself isn't actually the vacuum energy density The VeV is an expectation operator. Thsi is where I myself rather disagree with the method of calculating the Higgs energy density its typically done through the critical density formula hence I spent a good part of 10 years trying to narrow down a better method. have you read my comments about breaking gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance in this regard ? lets put it simply what is mediating the superconducting fields ? under EM its the mediator offshell photons. Now what occurs if you were to give mass to those photons upon mediation ? do You not see the problem with regards to Lorentz invariance ? The Higgs field doesn't give mass to the photons its excluded nor does it give mass to gluons its not in the known Higgs cross sections. A little FYI those cross sections also determines the VeV vacuum expectation OPERATOR. Given by for example the cross section with the W boson. Any particle it interacts with would do though. \[v=\sqrt{\sqrt{2}G^0_F}\] Higgs cross sections partial width's first one is the cross section with applicable fermions \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow f\bar{f})=\frac{G_Fm_f^2m_HN_c}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}(1-4m^2_f/m^2_H)^{3/2}\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow W^+ W^-)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_W}{32\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_w+3a_W^2)\] \[\Gamma(H\rightarrow ZZ)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_z}{64\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_Z+3a_Z^2)\] I have never encountered any cross section for Higgs and photons Meissner effect treatment or otherwise. So if you happen to have a professional peer review article showing one I would love to see it. As that would be useful in my personal line of research. The above cross sections are what's applied in electroweak symmetry breaking agreed on this detail I understood that from the start. I have no problem with being some Localized and strictly condensed matter physics treatment its how its applying on the cosmological scale that needs addressing or rather what the paper implies.... It still needs work though so I'm honestly hoping there is some improvements made there was some improvements particularly with renormalization which can be applied hence the QM/QFT above via creation/annihilation operators method above as its particularly useful.

Ooh I really like that paper still studying it. That paper is very well thought out thanks for sharing. +1 https://journals.aps.org/prx/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevX.13.041040

Here is a simpler breakdown using operators ie QM or QFT which would have been far easier to apply symmetry breaking with regards to the paper https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://faculty.pku.edu.cn/_resources/group1/M00/00/0D/cxv0BF5mDfKAOPDbACEBbOQBol4139.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-jdiwhaaJAxWvJTQIHZQ3C58QFnoECDYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0bF6zGAJhSK_UcqzuzVZ4o There is a reason why the vacuum catastrophe is also called the EM field ultraviolet catastrophe the problem is directly related to how it was renormalized... Here is a quick breakdown of the method I would have liked the author to have applied . Bose Einstein QFT format. \[|\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_1})\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_2})|0\rangle\] \[\Rightarrow |\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle= |\vec{k_2}\vec{k_1}\rangle\] number operator \[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}\vec{k})\] Hamilton operator \[\hat{H}=\int d^3k\omega_k[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\] momentum of field \[\hat{P}=\int d^3k\vec{k}[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\] renormlized Hamilton \[\hat{H_r}=\int d^3 k\omega_k\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}(\vec{k})\] Now for the full SU(3) Langrangian \[\mathcal{L}=\bar{\psi}^fi\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi^f_0\bar{\psi}^f\psi^f+g_o\bar{\psi}^f\gamma^\mu t_a\psi^f-\frac{1}{4}Fa_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}_a\] where \[F^{\mu\nu}_a=\partial^\nu A^\nu_a-\partial^\nu A^\nu_a+g_oF_{abc} A^\mu_bA\nu_c\] where a=(1,2.....8) for the gluon fields =26 fields=6 flavors+3 colors+8 gauge bosons gives 7 parameters+1 coupling There is \(SU(3)_c\) notice that this also applies to the weak force with 6 flavors and the 8 gauge bosons for the strong force ? that's the full QCD langrangian the SU(3) langrangian but that still doesn't include the Higgs couplings? So once again I ask what the bugger is an SU(3) atom as the only Langragian the author included was the QED langrangian.

SU(3) is the color and flavor group \(SU(2)+\otimes U(1) is the EM gauge U(1) doesn't fully describe the EM field Try a little better than that I pointed out that very problem with regards to those gauge groups and not atoms A long time ago in this very thread. That's one of the very reasons the articles SU(3) atoms makes absolutely no sense. That's been pointed out too many times to bother counting Why do you think my example for quarks was used go ahead do those calculations using gluons mediating the strong force between those same two quarks. Though I recommend you use Feycalc to sum the amplitudes What is an Su(3) atom is it just a gluon field field which one of the 8 possible 8 fields interacting the color combinations? A gauge group does not exist on its own its a flipping mathematical treatment There isn't any single reader that can answer the question What is an SU(3) atom... Both gluons and photons have the identical degrees of freedom so the calculation under Bose-Einstein is identical. It is the degrees of freedom used for the chemical reaction term under field treatment application when you apply that formula.... I already mentioned that the calculations above you could apply to strictly massless particles including gluons and you will still have an issue. It's the momentum terms that's the issue..the paper preserves the momentum terms for the SU(3) interaction which is quite distinct from the harmonic oscillator. It has greater degrees of freedom in its polarities the harmonic oscillator is an application of Hookes equations for a spring at each coordinate that is why if you don't renormalize the integrals will give infinite energy if applied at every infinitisimal. That is the very reason why we have a renormalized Hamilton in the first place. You don't sum it at every infinitisimal Do you want a decent methodology for harmonic oscillators see section 3.4.5 Advanced Quantum theory. https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-of-information-lab/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/aqm_lecture_notes_79.pdf That should make it clear that how modern physics handles harmonic oscillators Have gone beyond the formula used in the article The equation of motion in the article Is the harmonic oscillator for a diatomic molecule. Had the author applied those in superconductivity in regards to the harmonic oscillator and applied those equations it would have made a whole lot more sense in terms of condensed matter physics Then it would be more likely useful. I already mentioned Anderson Higgs treatments which applies to Higgs field superconductivity relations... There are decent articles on that topic But as I stated I cannot see any methodology contained in the authors paper that makes it useful as it is written too many ommisions and in some cases wrong methodology.

Yes I am fully aware of that however he is leaving the SU(3) gauge untouched. That calculation is a two quark to quark interaction which applies to the SU(3) gauge. How do you maintain 1 kelvin and leave the momentum terms untouched for the SU(3) gauge you can literally remove every single other interaction and run those calculations without any other Field or gauge including Higgs you can keep the particles completely massless and you would still be above 1 kelvin with preserving the SU(3) gauge interactions momentum terms. He literally specifies that in his opening paragraphs NO particles without mass. except SU(3) so tell me how do you maintain less than 1 kelvin and preserve SU(3) momentum terms ? particularly since his calculated number of SU(3) atoms exceed to particle count estimation for the Observable universe using the corresponding CMB temperature to number of photons relation via Bose-Einstein statistics. Which over the volume of the Observable universe would correspond to 10^90 photons. That calculation is prior to electroweak symmetry breaking where every particle is massless and in thermal equilibrium so indistinct from one another. let me know when you can answer that and tell me again how the model has validity. lmao for the record if you take the critical density formula and calculate the energy mass density the value will equate to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter. That's at 2.73 Kelvin Does that make it clear precisely why I stated the article is unusable in its present form ? I would certainly hope so

When a physicist looks at a paper he wants to be able to employ the mathematics to apply testability with known physics.. I literally in 100 percent all honesty could never ever use this paper as a reference or in any practical application it's as simple as that. If one has to sit there and make random guesses as to what the author is describing that doesn't help. A reader should never have to that to begin with I could take for example the simple equation for ZPE and upon integration get infinite energy in return and that is the same equation used in the article. There is no renormalization term included. The paper does not even mention the renormalized Hamilton let alone use the formula with the Pauli Villars regularization any calculation performed using gluon fields will give higher energy density for the volume given. It must with no choice as that region contains other fields. There is no getting around that. Furthermore There is a HUGE difference between a local condescend matter state than a global vacuum. So any comparison requires far better examination than what the paper offers. It is literally provable that the conditions required by the article HAS NOT OCCURED I cannot stress that enough the paper requires photons to have mass and that same paper just threw in the particle data group constraint on photon mass without doing a single calculation. TRY actually studying the difficulties in achieving a Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac condensate state then compare what happens in a nucleon nucleon interaction As well as do the conversions from eV to Kelvin go ahead try and figure out how the model works when any individual particle has a corresponding temperature conversion greater than close to absolute zero The author never specified how close so lets say 1 kelvin or less. go ahead prove me wrong but don't forget to include the particles momentum term pick any including its momentum 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 to kelvin conversion 11606 Kelvin per eV. now tell me how the model works ?

I had a better chance to this over and recall we had a very lengthy discussion on this forum several years back. The conclusion was any descriptive beyond singularity condition regardless of whether one thinks of it as infinite density, infinite mass density or simply infinite mass will still return garbage answers upon closer inspection. Strange as I recall back then pointed out the space and time components switching places as part of that argument which is based off the Rachaudhuri equations.

I've come across that before so it is one of the considerations I've seen before I would have to dig to find that paper I had read that on . If I recall it was related to a center of mass conjecture. I believe Roveilli also had a similar grain of thinking with regards to 5d to 4d Star paper but will have to double check on that (I can't recall if he was looking at BH as the star itself )

For starters spacetime is already a 4d metric with space itself being 3d. Secondly dimension is an independent degree of freedom not some alternative reality. 3rd the event horizon is an artifact of a metric not a true singularity condition so there are plenty of peer reviewed accepted methods showing this details its well covered in numerous textbooks of GR. Lastly no physicist actually believes in the infinite density as it's known nonsensical hence it's a mathematical singularity. Hopefully your theory has relevant mathematics as it's required both as a theory and a rule included above in the pinned threads for rules and guidelines of the Speculation forum. The format for latex on this site uses \[latex\*] for new line \(latex\*) for inline simply remove the * I used to prevent activation.

Common misconceptions would also be useful such as -what is really meant by expansion -dark matter (endless list) -dark energy (endless list) -Spacetime fabric myth (endless list) How are cosmological distances determined Early universe large scale structure formation Early universe star generation formation Myths surrounding black holes CMB Compton scattering Just some ideas

Your welcome Excellent question we can never measure individual virtual particles we can only infer their existence through indirect evidence through effects such as the Cassimer effect. They have insufficient energy/lifetime to individually be measurable and once you can make a measurement your measuring a particle itself and not a VP. One of the problems with oversimplification to get the conceptual ideas across is often one must drop certain details. Cross sections for example is an ensemble of particles with probability functions giving rise to probability currents as well. It's the weighted averaging of a large collection of measured scattering events done in an experimental apparatus. Positive and negative charge. Think back to that sine wave anytime the wave is in the negative x and y portion of the graph it's negative charge . When it's in the positive x and y axis it's positive charge. Energy and energy density is always positive unless it's being compared to a baseline with a non zero value. That's the typical layout it's doesn't have to be that way but it's a standardized layout. We also usually use the x axis for the direction of the particle. The right hand rule is useful to determine which direction the force of a field operates with its relation to its current flow. That's its primary relevance this gets applied also when in other field treatments for much the same reasons Don't worry it does take practice to fully grasp Going to add a further detail. Those Feymann diagrams that look like 2 incoming particles colliding is in the mathematics a mean average of each particle ensemble of a specific type so each leg is a ensemble or beam of incoming and outgoing particles.

An essential lesson to also understand charge, parity and time symmetry between particles and anti particles. This link will help visualize the propogator above don't worry about the math just look at the images and descriptives. https://web-docs.gsi.de/~wolle/TELEKOLLEG/KERN/LECTURE/Wollersheim/2020/53-FeynmanDiagrams.pdf To help with Studiots lesson. https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-dot-product.html https://www.mathsisfun.com/algebra/vectors-cross-product.html As well as the Right hand rule

Take for example the sinusoidal plane wave here https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phase_(waves)&wprov=rarw1 This wave you have no means of determining a beginning or end so you cannot localize the wave. This would be an example of a fluctuations. Now an example of an excitation. Specifically the Dirac Delta function which is used to localize your electrons via the Schrodinger or Klein Gordon equations ( don't worry about those last two terms just yet.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function#:~:text=The Dirac delta is used,impact by a Dirac delta. Notice in the animation the sharp spike leading to infinity. You can clearly see a beginning or end of that spike. That is an example of an excitation.. Now the interesting part is that the Delta function also works with a specific set of math treatments to determine the mean lifetime of a particle as well as it's mass/momentum relations. Via the Breit Wigner distribution ie the cross section of a particle. Again don't worry yet on that distribution function that requires considerable preliminary teachings to understand how that works. Very few members on this forum would understand what I'm doing there even though every formula in that thread is taught by the time one gets a Bachelors in either Cosmology or particle physics. My goal there is to help organize my goals in a personal line of research into all the Cosmological applications specific to the Higgs field. As well as working out a more specific timeline for early universe processes from BB to CMB. In essence expanding on some of the literature I provided you before your break. Edit I should add a detail to further help take that Dirac delta link . If you draw a vertical line parallel to the x axis halfway up the amplitude this is where in a cross section function the mean lifetime of the particle is determined.. If the width at that line is greater than the amplitude I can no longer consider that wavefunction as representing a particle. In essence it becomes a fluctuation and not an excitation. The peak itself is the highest likelyhood of the particles location.. Now to step this up a bit The more certain you become of the particles location the less certain you become of its momentum ( this is largely due to Fourier transformations itself but not entirely ) and vice versa. Aka Heisenburg uncertainty principle To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity. To help understand parity (one of the quantum numbers) take that same image and add an identical spike but in the negative Y axis. The two particles have opposite parity. Here is a video for the right hand rule for you to watch This will provide an essential detail to understand helicity in regards to all standard model field treatments. Including electromagnetism

Not too bad let's change the terminology a bit The electrons are effectively Operators they are the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The intermediate field is simply put the propogator (this is where virtual particles are applied.) The field is also an operator but the region of the transformation mathematics between the incoming and outgoing particles is the propogator action which is also a field but then so are the electrons as field excitations. Hence the Operstor and propogator action separation. Virtual particles are oft described as field fluctuations (cannot be localized ) where field excitations can be localized via a Dirac Delta function (Fourier transformation)

That was where I was thinking it may be a more accurate solution for the new cosmological problem as opposed to the old cosmological problem Weinberg has an article where he looked at that with regards to the anthropic models he used to push. Peebles also has a relevant paper distinguishing between the two. The problem is the OP has both though only describes both conditions having the relevant mathematics for the former which I had a different example on top of page one. The new Cosmological problem is why is the value so close to zero. The old problem was as you described. So your guess is as good as mine on that as I honestly do not see how the OP could possibly think the SU,(3) atoms could resolve either without including an energy mass term done using the method as my example on page 1 . The problem is there are 8 gluon fields so if you run calculations and apply over all 8 gluon fields for the 10^-15 meter value you would end up with even higher numbers than both problems the gluon mediation range is the effective range of 10^-15 meters. The reason for 8 gluon fields is the color mediation between quark combinations

A suggestion instead of looking at physical objects its seems to me you could simply examine the problem using wavelength.

Get rid of a need for an arms race good luck on that though.

There is a detail I need to reiterate. The paper requires a symmetry break that has not occurred even though every gauge group involved already has had a symmetry break event including U(1) as well as SU(3),the SU(2) symmetry break is when the W and Z bosons acquired mass. U(1) symmetry breaking is when electrons gained mass leaving photons massless. The SU(3) symmetry break quarks gained mass. This paper needs another symmetry break of U(1) to make photons massive. It conjectures this somewhere near absolute zero.

Lol truthfully I'm enjoying the paper itself it's fairly clear cut and we'll written.