joigus Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) @Albert2024, @JosephDavid, and the other guy, Let's hammer it home again. At some point somebody among you will understand (one can only hope). No vacuum in QFT has external legs. The vacuum in QFT is made up of things that look like, This means, in a manner of speaking, that the amplitudes (infinitely many of them) go from nothing to nothing. The vacuum state gives zero as expected value for the number operator of each and every particle. That, people, is what we call a vacuum. And thereby the name. A vacuum ultimately has nothing in it, except for amplitudes of something appearing there, and swiftly disappearing, according to quantum rules (HUP). Vacuum = nothing. Doh! OTOH, In the diagramatics of QFT, the "vacuum" this "paper" seems to be talking about would look something like this, That is, it has external legs (real particles that go from \(t=-\infty\) to \(t=+\infty\). In the picture I've represented a triplet of SU(3). It could be an octet, or whatever. Maybe not even an irreducible rep. of SU(3). What have you. It would have ramifications displaying vacuum polarisation, and so on. The point is: This is no vacuum. These "atoms" are there, and they keep there. Do you understand? Do you? Really? Do you, at long last, understand? Precision tests of the standard model would have detected this background (rather than vacuum) long ago, because other particles would scatter off these "atoms" copiously (among other things they would have to be 1043 times more abundant than nucleons and electrons, and 1033 times more abundant than photons. So, presumably, your beloved paper has been turned down experimentally ages ago. Remember this comment, which you also chose to ignore?: On 10/18/2024 at 3:22 AM, swansont said: What’s the experimental path to confirming this? Maybe it's another completely different SU(3) gauge group, with its own coupling constant and all. You tell me. I don't have to read the article, as per SFN rules. If my arguments are wrong or misplaced, then answer them, instead of cajoling each other with idle pleasantries and even idler reputation points, plus meaningless punishing -rep points, as @Mordred pointed out. And that will be all, unless you finally come up with real counter-arguments from physics. Bye. Edited October 26 by joigus minor correction 3
MJ kihara Posted October 26 Posted October 26 11 hours ago, JosephDavid said: Do you think this paper relevant ? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12481-7 My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. Mordred is more qualified to answer that question...I have my concepts, he and other residential experts in this forum input and arguments offer guidance,esp when I stray too much to my concepts. 1
Mordred Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) 1 hour ago, MJ kihara said: My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. Mordred is more qualified to answer that question...I have my concepts, he and other residential experts in this forum input and arguments offer guidance,esp when I stray too much to my concepts. That is actually a very good article I did enjoy reading it you might find that the stochastic treatment in this paper falls in line with another current thread and could be useful in comparison Both papers are looking at stochastic treatments for GR. Which is quite different from conformal treatments of ADS/CFT and canonical treatments of QFT. This is one those terms oft missed terms but has distinctive differences @joigus also mentioned that term vacuum that term can have significantly distinctive differences in what a vacuum is in different theories. The FLRW metric describes vacuum in a more classical format being a pressure relation. However QM/QFT looks at vacuum via potential/kinetic energy relations and GR can oft apply the Einstein vacuum which is devoid of all particles Condensed matter physics depending on the specific theory has own distinctive vacuums. In essence it's rather misleading term and one must examine the mathematics to understand how that term is being applied. Stochastic calculus https://www.math.uchicago.edu/~lawler/finbook.pdf Notes on conformal theory https://nbi.ku.dk/bibliotek/noter-og-undervisningsmateriale-i-fysik/notes-on-conformal-field-theory/Notes_on_Conformal_Field_Theory.pdf Canonical forms https://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~gill/CILASite/Resources/12Chap8.pdf Anyways I for one think we may have hashed this thread to death I will of course help answer anyone's questions as I usually do so will still pay attention to it but I really don't have anything more to add the the actual OP paper 1 hour ago, MJ kihara said: My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. As far as to answering specifically to the graviton that discussion per site rules would amount to thread hijacking regardless. Anyone that wants a good discussion of the main stream physics views on the graviton is more than welcome to open a thread asking specific questions on the topic. If it's not personal theories can be discussed in one the main steam forums. Theory building of course belongs in Speculation Edited October 26 by Mordred
MJ kihara Posted October 26 Posted October 26 12 hours ago, joigus said: The point is: This is no vacuum. These "atoms" are there, and they keep there. Do you understand? Do you? Really? Do you, at long last, understand? Precision tests of the standard model would have detected this background (rather than vacuum) long ago, because other particles would scatter off these "atoms" copiously The universe is made up of approximately 5%visible matter,it depend with the nature of interaction... neutrinos are passing through you continuously some energetic than the photons that hit you in mid day sunlight...you are not scattered off. 1
joigus Posted October 26 Posted October 26 41 minutes ago, MJ kihara said: The universe is made up of approximately 5%visible matter,it depend with the nature of interaction... neutrinos are passing through you continuously some energetic than the photons that hit you in mid day sunlight...you are not scattered off. Good point. You are not scattered off a neutrino. The neutrino is. At least it's a more natural way to say it. The reduced mass of you+neutrino is the mass of the neutrino, and the CoM frame coincides with your subjective frame of reference whence you see the neutrino. Anyway, neutrinos do scatter off material scatterers ever so lightly ans slightly, and rarely. And there are such things as inverse beta decay. That's why I mentioned the coupling constant, 13 hours ago, joigus said: Maybe it's another completely different SU(3) gauge group, with its own coupling constant and all. You tell me. I don't have to read the article, as per SFN rules. Otherwise, how do we know they even exist? Mind you, at high-enough energy, anything scatter by exchanging the appropriate particle. Example: Photons can scatter off photons at the W-boson-production range of energies. Quote In classical electrodynamics, photons cannot interact with each other because they have no charge. At the same time, however, quantum electrodynamics predicts that two photons can scatter off each other by exchanging virtual charged fermions or W bosons. (From https://physicsworld.com/a/light-can-scatter-from-light-cern-physicists-confirm/#:~:text=In classical electrodynamics%2C photons cannot,charged fermions or W bosons.)
Mordred Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) Little hint on photon photon scatterings. photons being their own antiparticle ( through whats called charge conjugation). The above article is specifically photon photon so doesn't need to apply charge conjugation just thought I would add that note. The photon doesn't have charge but does have charge conjugation -1 See here for relevant details. Note the charge conjugation usage for particle vs antiparticles in link http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/ab1u06/teaching/phys3002/course/20_PCCP.pdf Edited October 26 by Mordred
Sandeepkapo Posted October 26 Posted October 26 On 10/25/2024 at 8:30 AM, MJ kihara said: It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics. The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective. For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger... Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them' Could this perspective suggest that spacetime itself emerges from more fundamental holographic information encoded in SU(3) structures? Can you explain how the holographic principle is connected to the solution introduced in this paper ?
MigL Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) While the standard method for deriving the vacuum energy density involves harmonic oscillators and the Planck scale cut-off, the method utilized in the 2nd half of this video gives related critical reasoning for using the Planck scale cut-off. Using a cut-off of the SU()3) atom scale, approximately the size of a proton, would seem to ignore energy contributions from smaller scales, without a reasonable related explanation such as in the video. The fact that the SU\(3) atom scale happens to give numbers which seem to fit our needs is, then, finding relations where none exist, AKA numerology. ( Note that the method used in the video calculates the maximum Planck energy allowed in Planck time as per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and, while simple to understand, may not be nuanced enough to consider factors which may reduce this maximum. ) Edited October 26 by MigL 1
Mordred Posted October 26 Posted October 26 (edited) Excellent video I didn't see any mathematical errors throughout and it detailed the primary relevant equations for the cosmological constant problem Hopefully everyone picks up on a very important detail ( momentum terms) aka the velocity relations being precisely what is being used. Then think back to the OPs article and what would occur if you suppress velocity ie near absolute zero. The opposite end of the temperature scale to the Planck energy at 10^-43 seconds after BB. This is what I have been trying to get across for several pages of discussion. Condensed matter physics is the low end of the temperature scale and is looking at a different set of relations the coupling strength vs the temperature scale is inverse. The energy density scale increases as the volume decreases so does the temperature so if the SU(3) coupling strength at the high end of the scale is at its weakest. Two very different graphs. One graph proportional the other inverse. Thank you for sharing that Migl may I suggest that video gets a separate thread or added to one of the Astronomy and Cosmology pinned threads that one is a keeper. ( lol the only calc in that video I didn't think of doing was to place the vacuum catastrophe term to determine the resulting expansion rate. ) The rest is Introductory level. The video applied the equations for the lambda dominant era ( which is why the radiation equations of state was not included.) Critical density formula that wasn't included in the article but still well described. \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] Anyone can simply plug in the Hubble value and determine the energy density of Lambda via that formula. Anyone that wishes to do that calculation for any time in the past use the following \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\] To determine the Hubble value at a given redshift Z. As that is tricky the cosmocalc in my signature can perform that last calculation. For FYI the cmb temperature at a given Z using above will correspond to the inverse of the scale factor. Treatment below equations \[d{s^2}=-{c^2}d{t^2}+a({t^2})[d{r^2}+{S,k}{(r)^2}d\Omega^2]\] \[S\kappa(r)= \begin{cases} R sin(r/R &(k=+1)\\ r &(k=0)\\ R sin(r/R) &(k=-1) \end {cases}\] \[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] \[H^2=(\frac{\dot{a}}{a})^2=\frac{8 \pi G}{3}\rho+\frac{\Lambda}{3}-\frac{k}{a^2}\] setting \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu=0\] gives the energy stress mometum tensor as \[T^{\mu\nu}=pg^{\mu\nu}+(p=\rho)U^\mu U^\nu)\] \[T^{\mu\nu}_\nu\sim\frac{d}{dt}(\rho a^3)+p(\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=0\] which describes the conservation of energy of a perfect fluid in commoving coordinates describes by the scale factor a with curvature term K=0. the related GR solution the the above will be the Newton approximation. \[G_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}+H_{\mu\nu}=\eta_{\mu\nu}dx^{\mu}dx^{\nu}\] Thermodynamics Tds=DU+pDV Adiabatic and isentropic fluid (closed system) equation of state \[w=\frac{\rho}{p}\sim p=\omega\rho\] \[\frac{d}{d}(\rho a^3)=-p\frac{d}{dt}(a^3)=-3H\omega(\rho a^3)\] as radiation equation of state is \[p_R=\rho_R/3\equiv \omega=1/3 \] radiation density in thermal equilibrium is therefore \[\rho_R=\frac{\pi^2}{30}{g_{*S}=\sum_{i=bosons}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})^3+\frac{7}{8}\sum_{i=fermions}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})}^3 \] \[S=\frac{2\pi^2}{45}g_{*s}(at)^3=constant\] temperature scales inversely to the scale factor giving \[T=T_O(1+z)\] with the density evolution of radiation, matter and Lambda given as a function of z \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\] Edited October 26 by Mordred
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 8 hours ago, MigL said: The fact that the SU\(3) atom scale happens to give numbers which seem to fit our needs is, then, finding relations where none exist, AKA numerology. I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it.what the author is doing is a continuation of arguments present in the video you posted above. I think if there was a specific directions such a solution is supposed to come from it should have been arrived at longtime ago. By the way,thanks for the video,it's a good learning material. 2
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 10 hours ago, Sandeepkapo said: Could this perspective suggest that spacetime itself emerges from more fundamental holographic information encoded in SU(3) structures? Can you explain how the holographic principle is connected to the solution introduced in this paper ? Sometimes am having problem accessing the thread. When I joined this forum I had a theory developed with sheer logical reasoning and minimum already established scientific facts like charges of a quark,and published a book about it in a most basic layman language,my background is not physics oriented but I believed we need a basic theory that someone need to go back to and make references from it's principles....and if this theory is the actual basic theory then answers should get along with it....that's a long story. My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. the reason then why the number of SU(3) units it's not getting a long with the number of photons and protons in the universe is the way this holograph is being projected,the projection 'might' being interfered with by quantum noise....the information is encoded on the surface of of SU(3) structure (remember this)... quantum noise is coming from quantum soup.... universe expansion reduces temperature hence reducing quantum noise overtime(refining the projection).....meaning the solution the author is introducing is a constancy of proportionality-the rate at which this refining is taking place i.e how the classical universe governed by GR is emerging from quantum world governed by QFT.....hope that's not too much. 2
MigL Posted October 27 Posted October 27 (edited) 10 hours ago, MJ kihara said: I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it. The method described in the video uses the vacuum energy from quantum fluctuations, where we consider the maximum energy available in the smallest unit of measurable time ( according to the HUP ), in the smallest unit of measurable space. The OP decides to 'throw out' all quantum fluctuations below the volume of a proton ( equal to the SU(3) atom ). We know that there are quantum fluctuations below that scale, and that they contribute to the vacuum energy. Yet your pet theory says they don't, and we should believe it ? That was the issue with your 'early' posts; you tend to believe your 'logic' as opposed to actual observations. You can find other videos similar to the one I posted, at this site https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsExplainedVideos/videos Most are very interesting and educational. Edited October 27 by MigL 1
swansont Posted October 27 Posted October 27 11 hours ago, MJ kihara said: I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer? 1
joigus Posted October 27 Posted October 27 10 hours ago, MJ kihara said: My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. Nothing holographic going on on this thread, believe me. Don't get confused. 'Holographic' means a gauge theory on the boundary of a region can be seen as isomorphic in some sense to a gravitational theory in said region. I don't see where any of this is 'holographic'.
Mordred Posted October 27 Posted October 27 (edited) 53 minutes ago, swansont said: The paper says that the symmetry manifests itself in structures as small as nucleons, but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer? Indeed it would have made more sense to use something along the lines as multiple of squares of the Planck length Example \[ L^2_p=\frac{G\hbar}{c^3}= 2.75*10^{-66} cm^3\] Assuming that back of the envelope calculation I did is correct. Though the articles SU(3) is too poorly defined. Edited October 27 by Mordred
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 1 hour ago, MigL said: The OP decides to 'throw out' all quantum fluctuations below the volume of a proton ( equal to the SU(3) atom ). We know that there are quantum fluctuations below that scale, and that they contribute to the vacuum energy. Yet your pet theory says they don't, and we should believe it ? That was the issue with your 'early' posts; you tend to believe your 'logic' as opposed to actual observations. You can find other videos similar to the one I posted, at this site https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsExplainedVideos/videos Most are very interesting and educational. There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be. 2
Mordred Posted October 27 Posted October 27 1 minute ago, MJ kihara said: There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be. I totally disagree with this statement in physics any achievement should still be compatible with other known physics. Achievement isn't accomplished through hand wavy statements that one cannot apply known physics to describe 1
swansont Posted October 27 Posted October 27 1 minute ago, MJ kihara said: There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be. If it’s wrong, it’s wrong. It’s not much of an achievement to be wrong.
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 53 minutes ago, swansont said: but I don’t see where there’s any true justification for picking that radius. Nothing presented to show it could not be much smaller. Not randomly chosen, but arbitrarily chosen — because it gives the desired answer? Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose? 2
Mordred Posted October 27 Posted October 27 Just now, MJ kihara said: Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose? So develop the model for the Author to make it workable instead of that being the authors responsibility is that what your stating ?
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 43 minutes ago, joigus said: 'Holographic' means a gauge theory on the boundary of a region can be seen as isomorphic in some sense to a gravitational theory in said region. I don't see where any of this is 'holographic'. You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird. 2
Mordred Posted October 27 Posted October 27 1 minute ago, MJ kihara said: You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird. Verbal explanations isn't sufficient the 10^123 atoms don't involve the holographic principle
swansont Posted October 27 Posted October 27 8 minutes ago, MJ kihara said: Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose? If it’s the right parameter there should be some other physics showing that, not just getting the answer you want.
MJ kihara Posted October 27 Posted October 27 I don't usually get along with mob justice.....there are no 100^123 atoms!😂
Mordred Posted October 27 Posted October 27 35 minutes ago, MJ kihara said: I don't usually get along with mob justice.....there are no 100^123 atoms!😂 Lol yeah that's been hashed to death this thread lmao
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now