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

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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 ? 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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

Verbal explanations isn't sufficient the 10^123 atoms don't involve the holographic principle

So develop the model for the Author to make it workable instead of that being the authors responsibility is that what your stating ?

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

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.

As a member of numerous forums including physicsforums.com heated discussions can occur on any forum. I Don't always use the same callsign on other forums. This site is simply my chosen favorite but I can attest heated discussions can occur on any forum. For the reasons I mentioned above we both simply felt strongly in our understanding. It's as simple as that and yes we both learned a few things in this discussion I hope others have as well. In my case I learned a bit more on how useful rapidity is in deriving a logarithmic function as one example but not the only lesson... Example treatment here https://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/edaw/PHY206/Site/2012_course_files/phy206rlec7.pdf Keep in mind there are some slight distinctions between how particle physics applies rapidity to how SR will apply it ( primarily frame of reference the particle physics frame of reference being the center of beam or amplitude) ie c.m frame as one case

Sometimes this occurs when both parties feel strongly about their current understanding so the debate can sometimes get rather heated. Lol often end up expressing the same thing but differently. I never treat it as personal and in the case of this thread never considered md65536 as delivering any personal attack. It may oft seem that way but it's not the case. For the record I'm equally to blame for how heated the discussion had gotten and fully admit that. I also never hold grudges and have nothing against md65536

We didn't cover quantum tunneling I was about to make a correction spell check interference when I saw the cross post notification it should have read didn't cover. The earlier DE models uses quantum tunneling just an FYI so did Allen Guth's False vacuum inflation which is the first inflationary models. So quantum tunneling is workable for DE but not DM

Try a term we haven't covered. You have system one with its boundary conditions system 2 also has a boundary condition. The two boundary conditions form a potential barrier. The leakage replace with quantum tunneling. We cross posted see above

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 \[H_z=H_o\sqrt{\Omega_m(1+z)^3+\Omega_{rad}(1+z)^4+\Omega_{\Lambda}}\]

A question to ask " is science to blame for those weapons?" Science itself is what increases our understanding its purpose is not to determine how governments or the military or engineers apply the understandings that science provides Seems to me all too often ppl place the blame in the wrong court.

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