Mordred

It's quite similar to the Yang Mills mass gap problem which is off topic but thought I would mention it formally connecting that under geometric terms is quite formal and tricky. Well above the nature of this thread.

For me it's cold when your spit freezes before it hits the ground lol.

Here is another detail to consider. Photon polarization already exists and can be shown through the Maxwell equations as the primary basis. In QM they make use of this. For example parametric downconversion relies on photon polarization for a huge range of experiments involving entsnglement where the polarization filter seperates the polarization waves from monochromatic light. Here is the mathematical basis (step by step) including a useful mathematica program. https://bingweb.binghamton.edu/~suzuki/QuantumMechanicsFiles/2-1_Photon_polarization.pdf These polarization relations are also used in QM/QFT for charge conjugation involving photons/antiphotons where the charge conjugation relationship distinguishes whether or not a photon is a photon or antiphoton based on its polarization helicity. So how will your theory work under the above ?

Yeah whatever you say pick any particle to particle interaction under the SU(3) descriptive the orders magnitude will still be wrong. I did those calculations on systems without interactions just scalar particle fields. You include interactions that 10^{123} will still be wrong. Pick any interacting system with that number value go ahead do the math on it. Go ahead give your system a single eV value for each SU(3) atom. You certainly can't have interactions without particles so good luck with that one.....

There is no wrongs facts involved one can also use the full energy momentum relationship to include the possibility of massless particles. However the author specifies a state where there are no massless particles in his first 3 pages. In particular the portion he entered the particle data group constraint as a calculated mass term due to U(1) specifically stating verbally as well. I already pointed out that earlier numerous times. It's specifically the QED langrangian in simplified form. I also pointed out he defined a Hermitean system which that is fine However as I mentioned he never extracted the relevant terms related specifically isolating the longitudinal waveform components which would be needed to apply to Meissner effect. Simply including the generalized QED langrangian isn't useful in any manner. In QFT anytime you have a specific interaction of any form it will have its own Langrangian. It is after all the probabilistic path of least action which is the multiple field momentum terms. Those equations motion or vector component equivelence are literally used for all quantum interactions. One could Alternatively use derivatives the results would be the same. As they are equivalent methodologies integrals However works extremely well for wavefunctions. The huge advantage is all particles always follow the path of least action regardless of scattering event or not. You may recall Swansont and others have mentioned the lack of calculations as well. PS you can perform the calculation yourself with just the mass of the lightest quark. You will still have the same orders of magnitude error margin. Try it at 2 MeV for say a hypothetical monopole quark system. In mainstream for compliance to acknowledge the unlikely hood of that use the lightest meson value. Won't matter it's the 10^{123} value that's the issue for number of SU(3) atoms. You can use the lightest particle with a mass term or even massless photons that number is still too high. I know I mentioned the Observable universe number of photons at BB being 10^90. Previously this thread within the first couple of pages if I recall Part of the reason to constantly mention Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac throughout the thread.

How do you mean ? A little clarity might help.

The universe wouldn't even be able to expand to begin with the potential energy (mass) exceeds the kinetic energy terms of radiation by far to great a factor. That can be shown through the scalar field equations of state or alternately a matter only universe with no radiation via critical density formula which prior to discovery of the cosmological constant gives the density to of an expanding universe to switch to collapsing. (It was derived as a matter only solution to begin with ) using GR and Jean's instability. I don't know about anyone else but this paper is nonsense the primary mistake was not performing any calculations plain and simple. Including introductory level cosmology or intro level physics.

I decided to do a bit of calculations The observable Universe mass using Critical density is estimated to be \[10^{53} kg.\] So using \(10^{123}\) protons at 936 MeV The corresponding mass is \[1.669 ×10^{96}\] kg Talk about a HUGE mismatch lol thought I would share that. I seriously hope the author isn't using protons or neutrons the theory would automatically be invalid simply on that calculation. There simply put absolutely no way possible to solve the cosmological constant problem with such a large mismatch none whatsoever superconductivity or not. It's literally impossible with 10^123 protons or neutrons Anyone want to try simply multiply 936 MeV times 10^{123} then convert to Kg with e=mc^2

The worse part is I know the mathematics behind every theory that's been mentioned. 35 to 40 years of continous study teaches a lot. So one can only imagine what these condensending tones sound like to me lmao 🤣 😂 😆 😅 Take Maxwell Boltzmann for example SUSY QFT and All apply it. It existed prior to all the above. It's been integrated into all the above. That's the understanding one gains when they sit down and study the mathematics of a given theory.

You can believe what you want about physics here is a little trivia for you it doesn't make any difference whether your describing a system using SUSY or QFT or even classical physics. Every theory must comply with observational evidence. Having \(10^{123}\) protons in our universe exceeds All observational evidence for the mass/energy of the observable universe. Thst detail trumps any theory that states otherwise. Plain and simple. If you ran that mass term through the FLRW matter dominant equations the very universe would collapse. No theory becomes mainstream without rigorous testing via experimental evidence.

It's still amazing that we choose to ignore conservation of mass energy in all the above in favor of a model with no calculations. Sigh I give up if you wish to believe in some paper that on a couple of occasions flat out lies (example mass of photon in OP paper) Feel free I have better things to do. I don't feel like arguing that throwing away decades of active research for mainstream physics that you want to throw away in favor of some paper that doesn't show any qualitative calculations is the wrong approach.

The amplitudes are directly related to the anplitudes inside a proton. Recall All particles are field excitations. Not little balls of matter. Great idea take 936 MeV and multiply it by 10^{123} atoms how much energy does that give ? One doesn't need to be a mathematician to see it will exceed 10^19 GeV which is the total energy density at BB. Exceeding total energy/mass of the universe. (Ps 10^19 GeV is the Planck temp cutoff when you convert to Kelvin) Lol you could for example assume each SU(3) atom has exactly 1 quanta of energy and do the same calculation above just looking at the powers indicate it will exceed also.

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 your missing is an essential aspect that I have repeated numerous times. Take a bottle and fill it with neutrons treat each neutron as a microstate. Lets completely ignore internal microstates. With decay over time the number of neutrons will be less over time. This is precisely why I repeatedly mention number density calculations. The number density is also affected by temperature So in terms of entropy you really can't look at stability alone as the stability of neutrons is gained through the formation of deuterium. So if that same bottle is filled with deuterium there is no change in number density. Regardless of any instability of free neutrons. This is something the author never took into consideration he used volume when he should have used number density via Maxwell-Boltzmann which would have given him all the needed requirements to apply for calculating the number of protons or neutrons at any given temperature to apply to entropy. The entropy formulas are a direct result of Maxwell Boltzmann in regards to particle physics and cosmology applications. So why wasn't that method applied to begin with ?

The decay does not affect the number of microstates any neutron examined will have identical number of microstates otherwise it wouldn't be a neutron. What alters is the transition amplitudes via CKMS mass mixing matrix a simpler method though being Beit Wigner where under that treatment you treat the proton or neutron as a single particle.

No there isn't a misunderstanding on my part Are you familiar with the S matrix for protons and neutrons ? The number of up down quarks for each is merely the mean average color charge relations If you examine the number of microstates contained within either the proton and neutron via the S matrix your earlier statement makes little sense based on stability Protons and neutrons are composite particles plain and simple so they have internal microstates. The number of microstates within the Proton does not change in the interaction you described. An electron is not a microstate contained within the proton to begin with holographic principle won't help what many fail to understand is is that the holographic principle is conformal The laws of physics would be the same if you use the holographic Principle or QM/QFT or even classical physics. That is the basis of its premise.

I would like to see a mathematical proof of the above as I know you do not know the math show a peer review article that the neutron would not satisfy the third law of thermodynamics. Both protons and neutrons are degeneracy systems. That peer review should show the relevant Fermi- energy for each https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi_energy

yeah thanks for the catch corrected above.

I was curious as to a fundamental question, we all know the CMB temperature today is 2.73 Kelvin with the radius of the Observable universe being 46.3 Gly. So I asked what would the radius need to be to reach 1 Kelvin. It turns out the universe would need to have a radius of 140 Gly. The universe would be roughly 28.8 Gyrs old far far into the future assuming nothing changes with the cosmological parameters

Agreed it would have been more intelligent to use \[\rho_R=\frac{\pi^2}{30}{g_{*S}=\sum_{i=bosons}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})^3+\frac{7}{8}\sum_{i=fermions}gi(\frac{T_i}{T})}^3\] To determine how many up and down quarks would be available to form protons and neutrons in the first place. Maxwell Boltzmann above takes into account the laws of thermodynamics. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution

This matches a policy any good physicist follows. Spend more time trying to prove your theory wrong otherwise it will never become robust enough under cross examination. For those interested this is about the best article I have been able to locate on QCD dual superconductivity. https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-lat/0510112 This link shows how to incorporate to string theory https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0301032 As I mentioned numerous times type 1 vs type 2 superconductors the distinction has to do with vortex penetration depth http://lampx.tugraz.at/~hadley/ss2/problems/super/s.pdf

The harmonic oscillator has absolutely nothing to do with stability read post above. Neither does the cosmological constant vacuum catastrophe even though its obvious you've chosen to ignore everything I stated. Thankfully there are other readers even those that haven't gotten involved.

I'm still wondering how long it's going to take some people , to recognize there is a HUGE distinction between a ground state and an excited particle state..... I've given up trying to get that across to certain people. The clue that all quantum fields has a ground state should have indicated those people might just be missing a detail... It literally doesn't matter what quantum field is used. They all have a ZPE. The ground state isn't the particles themselves. Lol providing the field strength formula for QCD obviously wasn't a strong enough clue. The conversation is still discussing particles and not the interaction between particles which is where the ground state is applied in terms of superconductivity. here is the simplest mathematical statement describing the above. Maybe just maybe this will work \[\hat{a}(\vec{k})|0\rangle=0\] the \(\vec{k}\) is the wavefunction the \(|0\rangle\) is the ground state the \(\hat{a}\) is the creation annihilation operators that give the creation and annihilation of particles (ladder operators) From the ground state. the creation/annihilation operators are determined via the quantum harmonic oscillator. So is the Hamilton \[\hat{H}=\omega(\hat{a}^\dagger a+\frac{1}{2})\] the number Operator is \[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger \hat{a}\] gives the Hamilton a nice simple form \[\hat{H}=\omega(\hat{N}+\frac{1}{2})\] I will leave it at that.

Hydrogen is one elements that doesn't require fusion to produce others being Deuterium and lithium. The constituents protons neutrons and electrons at high temperaturesdrp out of thermal equilibrium at different temperatures. Electrons themselves drop out of equilibrium during electroweak symmetry breaking neutrons and protons drop out at much lower temperature for 75 % dropout roughly 5000 Kelvin where hydrogen at 75 percent dropout being 3000 Kelvin ie roughly the surface of last scatterring. However for truly early star formation prior this involves supercooling the during slow roll a reheating. This plus higher densities granted the means for truly early star formation. No DM is not needed in regards to hydrogen formation however it is needed for early large scale structure formation (stars, galaxies, galaxy clusters etc Boltzmann brain is a highly speculative conjecture that is supported by mathematics I don't particularly follow it but do know of some physicists that have studied it such as Sean Carrol. It's not needful to understand physics. In regards to particles knowing. This descriptive doesn't make sense. Recall those conservation laws I previously mentioned ? They show what conditions are required in order for particles to form via interactions. In essence if a particle can be formed it will be formed when the requirements are met without violating those conservation laws. This is also involved in determining mean lifetime of particles. For example electrons are stable as there is no particle an electron can decay into.

Guess we found the QFT ghost field lol