A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[MJ kihara]

33 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Lol yeah that's been hashed to death this thread lmao

Surely...I asked you if the formulas employed by the author were wrong you never replied to that...the author is using physics mathematics,I don't understand which other way should someone reason to get a solution....?(I myself questioned the use of the term SU(3) atom given I had a diagram related to that, I was told to throw it down the sink..it's resisting the sink....am getting to know the jargon...who knows next round it's mathematics...)...what is correct is correct no matter the different language verbal or mathematic that one uses to give the solution.

[Mordred]

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 

Edited October 27 by Mordred

[Mordred]

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.

Edited October 27 by Mordred

[joigus]

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Ahem... No. Although weird or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

I'm not giving an answer. I'm pointing out a mistake. Nothing should be weird about that.

If you have a better understanding of what 'holographic' means in the context of field theory, and why it's relevant here, I'm all ears.

Holographic in this context would mean that a particular gauge theory, presumably SU(3) being the gauge group on the surface of the cosmic horizon, is dual in a precise mathematical sense to a gravitational vacuum in the bulk (inside the cosmic horizon). In particular it must have the same degrees of freedom. I'm no expert on holographic field theory, but presumably the gauge theory would have to be highly constrained: Hamiltonian constraints, plenty of Lagrange multipliers, quantisation rules on the constraint surface in phase space. BRST quantisation perhaps. You know the drill... This should be so, I'm only guessing, so that the dual version is a simple scalar (actually a number) on the inside, which is what the vacuum looks like from the point of view of GR. 

That's not what our friends are telling us here. They're telling us the cosmic volume is filled with these SU(3) 'atoms', and that their volumetric count gives the energy content of the universe given by the cosmological constant. So no, it's not a surface-to-volume correspondence (so non-holographic), and no, I'm not giving an answer; and again no, I don't think it's weird what I'm saying.

[Mordred]

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

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

59 minutes ago, joigus said:

Ahem... No. Although weird or not is in the eyes of the beholder.

I'm not giving an answer. I'm pointing out a mistake. Nothing should be weird about that.

If you have a better understanding of what 'holographic' means in the context of field theory, and why it's relevant here, I'm all ears.

Holographic in this context would mean that a particular gauge theory, presumably SU(3) being the gauge group on the surface of the cosmic horizon, is dual in a precise mathematical sense to a gravitational vacuum in the bulk (inside the cosmic horizon). In particular it must have the same degrees of freedom. I'm no expert on holographic field theory, but presumably the gauge theory would have to be highly constrained: Hamiltonian constraints, plenty of Lagrange multipliers, quantisation rules on the constraint surface in phase space. BRST quantisation perhaps. You know the drill... This should be so, I'm only guessing, so that the dual version is a simple scalar (actually a number) on the inside, which is what the vacuum looks like from the point of view of GR. 

That's not what our friends are telling us here. They're telling us the cosmic volume is filled with these SU(3) 'atoms', and that their volumetric count gives the energy content of the universe given by the cosmological constant. So no, it's not a surface-to-volume correspondence (so non-holographic), and no, I'm not giving an answer; and again no, I don't think it's weird what I'm saying.

Alright, here’s the thing. The misunderstanding here is thinking of the universe and the proton as three-dimensional objects, they’re not. They’re both four-dimensional, with three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. Now, if you take the boundary (surface area) of the universe and divide it by the boundary of a proton, you get a huge number, the author obtained, 10^(123). That number is supposed to tell us, by holography, about how many su(3) atoms could filling up the universe. Here’s where it gets interesting: the “holographic principle” says that everything inside a volume can be described by information on its boundary. Now, in quantum field theory (QFT), if you integrate over all the vacuum energy in four dimensions, you get this massive energy density, way bigger than what we actually observe as dark energy. But by applying the holographic idea, that huge number from our boundary comparison lets us spread out this QFT vacuum energy across all those SU(3) vacuum atoms. The result? The vacuum energy density drops down to the observed dark energy precisely. This gives a holographic explanation for dark energy confined in our four-dimensional universe and effectively solving the cosmological constant problem.

 

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

This is why I mentioned numerous times one should apply Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac statistics for thr number density of particles 

I read in the paper that the author used in Eq 27 a distribution implied by Snyder quantum spacetime which may be more fundamental than the statistical distributions such as Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac. 

[Mordred]

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 ?

12 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

 

I read in the paper that the author used in Eq 27 a distribution implied by Snyder quantum spacetime which may be more fundamental than the statistical distributions such as Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac. 

I'm quite familiar with Snyders metric it is not more fundamental than bose einsteins or Fermi dirac 

14 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

 

I read in the paper that the author used in Eq 27 a distribution implied by Snyder quantum spacetime which may be more fundamental than the statistical distributions such as Bose-Einstein and 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

[MigL]

15 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

Alright, here’s the thing.

Either you don't understand the Holographic Principle, or you are misusing it.

[Mordred]

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.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

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 

 

ρ=ℏmc2

 

 

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 

That is interesting. You are touching a topic that the  same author investigated  recently and published in 

 

https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271824500366

 

 

[Mordred]

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.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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.

The author cited this paper. They are very related. 

[Mordred]

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

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

25 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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

Back to square 1.

[Mordred]

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. 

 

 

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

23 minutes ago, Mordred said:

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. 

 

 

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation.

Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

[Mordred]

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.

 

 

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

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.

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

 designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

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 ?

On 10/25/2024 at 5:31 PM, Mordred said:

Here is a good article on Supersymmetric BCS. I will be adding articles of different treatments under methodologies as I locate what I see as decent ones. Readers will also note it also includes Kaluzu-Klein 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4157

However one critical detail is that these mathematics are being applied to condensates Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac condensates.

This article is quite a bit simpler to relate to but the holographic treatments can get just as tense as above.

https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/20-HolSC-SB2.pdf

Here is decent more classical article on condensed matter physics. Treat it more as a starting point a more textbook format if you will.

https://www.eng.uc.edu/~beaucag/Classes/AdvancedMaterialsThermodynamics/Books/PhysicsofCondensedMatter.pdf

This will definitely draw interest the last article includes something many people have rarely heard about. The Einstein frequency though the name Bose-Einstein condensate should be a obvious clue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_solid

Hope that helps you will note these treatments do use terms such as vacuum ( the vacuum in these cases is NOT the same as an quantum or spacetime vacuum.) They are vacuums due to lattice spacing.

Hope that helps.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14741

Above is a decent coverage of condensed matter gauge groups.

I'm going to add another suggestion to all readers attempting to teach themselves physics.

Anytime you are studying an article and see a reference to terminology, theory etc stop reading the original article and familiarize yourself with the theory or terminology before continuing to read the original article. The more you do that the easier it becomes to understand professional level articles.

Lol I lost count the number of times I started reading articles that I thought were related to Cosmology applications then suddenly hit some theory I had never heard of and when I examined that theory or term realized I'm reading the wrong treatment for what I was looking for.

Lol though if the article is particularly good I do read the full article with the methodology above.

A good personal example is this

(Fields)

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912205

I've been studying this for several years and only halfway through when I get time. However that's just a suggestion.

Another useful technique if you can't afford textbooks then search for dissertation papers and lecture notes 

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.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[Mordred]

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.

 

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

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.

Am all a where of that....the universe is well evolving towards that...am trying to be careful however,I think we can get something out of that...or maybe learn more...

[Mordred]

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.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

That is a very evident proof that the

10123

is easily falsifiable.

 

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

[Mordred]

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.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[Mordred]

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

\[T_H=\frac{\hbar c^3}{8\pi GM k_b}\]

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[joigus]

OMG. This thread should be renamed to "The whittling down of Kihara" . Anyway...

12 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

Alright, here’s the thing. The misunderstanding here is thinking of the universe and the proton as three-dimensional objects, they’re not.

You guys got the holographic principle wrong. It's actually more general than what I said. I referred to the inspirational idea which was the AdS/CFT duality, or gauge-gravity duality, etc.

Anyway, the holographic principle refers to relating field in the bulk with field on the boundary of that bulk. I don't see how the crazy SU(3) background relates to that. @MigL and @Mordred seem to agree.

But that's not the worst, this is a matter background, not a vacuum. A vacuum does not dilute with the expansion of the universe. A background does. 

(reprise)

Edited October 28 by joigus
quote added

[Mordred]

4 minutes ago, joigus said:

OMG. This thread should be renamed to "The whittling down of Kihara" . Anyway...

You guys got the holographic principle wrong. It's actually more general than what I said. I referred to the inspirational idea which was the AdS/CFT duality, or gauge-gravity duality, etc.

Anyway, the holographic principle refers to relating field in the bulk with field on the boundary of that bulk. I don't see how the crazy SU(3) background relates to that. @MigL and @Mordred 

OTOH, this is a matter background, not a vacuum. A vacuum does not dilute with the expansion of the universe. A background does.

(reprise)

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