Mordred Posted 4 hours ago Share Posted 4 hours ago (edited) I don't particularly have a problem with any chosen particle. I mentioned that numerous times. If you look back though my issue is regardless of any chosen particle or particle field you should still apply Maxwell Boltzmann and not simply use volumes. Secondly all quantum fields has an inherent quantum uncertainty regardless of temperature. I also showed that the calculations for a QCD vacuum is distinctive to a QED vacuum. I also includes peer reviewed links describing dual Meissner for QCD. Not just a single Meissner for QED. This is the details the author didn't include or didn't examine. Let me ask you how many formulas has the author posted showing the numerous amplitudes contained within a proton ? Each field within that proton has inherent uncertainty. So how precisely does that match up to a single vector field calculation for the vacuum catastrophe when not even the electric charges match between quarks and electrons ? The amplitudes mediating the electric charges between protons and electrons don't match each other either. That was part of that examination I did earlier. If the author had applied those missing details I wouldn't have any real problem however he didn't looked deep enough ie into the mathematical proofs of the theories he tries to put together. He doesn't show the first second third and fourth NLO (next leading order integrals involved) In essence he's ignoring a huge set of amplitudes with regards to protons/neutrons etc. Every time you use a Greens Function with regards to any Hamilton has uncertainty and that's every single wavefunction in QFT or QM. You have additional uncertainty adding to a total sum . Edited 4 hours ago by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ kihara Posted 1 hour ago Share Posted 1 hour ago 3 hours ago, Mordred said: I don't particularly have a problem with any chosen particle. I mentioned that numerous times. If you look back though my issue is regardless of any chosen particle or particle field you should still apply Maxwell Boltzmann and not simply use volumes. Secondly all quantum fields has an inherent quantum uncertainty regardless of temperature. I also showed that the calculations for a QCD vacuum is distinctive to a QED vacuum. I also includes peer reviewed links describing dual Meissner for QCD. Not just a single Meissner for QED. This is the details the author didn't include or didn't examine. Let me ask you how many formulas has the author posted showing the numerous amplitudes contained within a proton ? Each field within that proton has inherent uncertainty. So how precisely does that match up to a single vector field calculation for the vacuum catastrophe when not even the electric charges match between quarks and electrons ? The amplitudes mediating the electric charges between protons and electrons don't match each other either. That was part of that examination I did earlier. If the author had applied those missing details I wouldn't have any real problem however he didn't looked deep enough ie into the mathematical proofs of the theories he tries to put together. He doesn't show the first second third and fourth NLO (next leading order integrals involved) In essence he's ignoring a huge set of amplitudes with regards to protons/neutrons etc. Every time you use a Greens Function with regards to any Hamilton has uncertainty and that's every single wavefunction in QFT or QM. You have additional uncertainty adding to a total sum . What would make you conclude that cosmological constant problem has been solved in a precise way? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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