Mordred

Spin was mathematically developed using known physics. All mainstream physics were developed using known physics. There is no magical eureka moment real physics is painstaking work applying known physics to any new theory. One of the first lessons taught to me in my formal training is that if you cannot apply mainstream physics to a theory. Then the theory is wrong. Feymann himself is commonly mentioned quoting that statement.

As someone who is an accredited theoretical physicist I can tell you with absolute certainty no theory that doesn't apply those main stream physics will ever work.. That is the reality and I've seen ppl try for over 35 years its never worked out for them. Nor would you be able to give me a single example where it has.

Well unfortunately in the case of the quantum harmonic oscillator I should be able to directly take the equivalent creation/annihilation operators used to describe the same mathematics describing the vacuum catastrophe in the article and directly calculate the number density of particles. That's a detail that's in an introductory level QED textbook The methodology used (volume ) is only has validity under the assumption of a fermion not its range of interaction which is the range of the strong nuclear force. The method I mentioned preserves the energy/mass conservation budget. Using strictly volume wouldn't If your interested in the above method let me know and I will be more than happy to post the method I just described here. That's the part that makes question the article. How can anyone understand the QED equation to show photon decoupling but know what I just described.

Excellent keep that in mind when it comes to Cosmology. It will help understand how expansion is a thermodynamic process that involves how the standard model of particles can affect the expansion rate. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_state_(cosmology) I already gave you a couple of articles better detailing the relations in the above link. Those equations of state were determined by thinking of those particles being in a box and how they interact with the box walls and other particles in the same box. In that regard they were treated in the same manner as an ideal gas used in engineering applications of which Studiot is quite knowledgeable on. Much of the mathematics of engineering and Cosmology have very similar relations. (Recall those terms boundary conditions ?) Same idea another term is partition/partition function or Parton but confined to a single wavelength. Here is another good site of exercises and video lectures all free https://www.khanacademy.org/search?search_again=1&page_search_query=Cosmology

No nature loves complexity. Everything in our universe was already in the container and the container is getting bigger over time. Aka expansion.

It's better to think of the Observable universe as a closed container to better comprehend any ideal gas law treatments. It's not really a closed system but due to the speed limit that approximation is appropriate. Here for your interest this is one example of a Dark matter detector in Australia https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stawell_Underground_Physics_Laboratory Closest you will get to your bucket lol. One of the reasons I'm glad you picked up on the particle are field excitations is that it makes it far easier to understand weakly interactive particles. For example a neutrino can pass through a 1000 lightyears of lead without a single interaction. That is extremely unlikely if particles were little bullets. You have neutrinos passing through your body even as we speak but don't worry they have zero effect on your body or health

Absolutely as long as you recognize anything involving QM or QFT will involve probability and probability functions

Well let's take an example a particle accelerator accelerates say protons to collide with other protons. Those collisions produce other other particles but you don't really know what you will end up getting. The best you can predetermine is the probabilistic likelyhood of which particles will get produced. Homogeneous and isotropy may or may necessarily apply you can have inhomgeneous and anistropic configurations as well it depends on the fields involved. Impossible space is simply a volume not a substance spacetime is just a volume where time is given dimensionality of length through the interval (ct) DM is far too diffuse in mass density and we don't even know what comprises DM to begin with

Breit Wigner references https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485 Cross section for specific processes https://pdg.lbl.gov/2010/reviews/rpp2010-rev-cross-section-formulae.pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document? repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=1a8f4d739a9c49f16f562bd2751d6b7d5339e3e4

So your using a densitomer for detection correct ? I take it your algorithm isn't applying any other algorithm other than what you described briefly above. Have you considered incorporating Hume-Hothery rules to help narrow down possible alloy configurations ? Or other methods of narrowing down possible configurations such as alloy conductivity? This may prove useful in narrowing down computations

Glad you find field treatments enlightening and enjoyable as far as why all electrons for example are identical no matter you examine them or any particular particle type. We simply do not the reason for that we simply know all evidence shows that.. As far as what particles can be created from a given scatterring process those involve several conservation laws. Conservation of baryon number, flavor, color, isospin, lepton number, energy, momentum Particles don't know what to become it's more a case of the consequence of those above laws as to what particles being created is possible due to the scatterring process involved.

Glad you had better luck than I did. My area had cloud cover over the weekend I was hopeful doing the evening when it looked like be clearing up.. Unfortunately by the time it got dark enough had roughly 75 percent overcast with high enough winds I couldn't keep my 10 " Skywatcher Dobsonian telescope stable enough the brief time I caught a glimpse. Hopefully I can catch it another night lol

very cool I am hoping to catch a glimpse of it as well. I already have my telescope loaded in my vehicle but its still too bright out where I am at

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2778290 OK I've been examining this article a bit closer trying to figure out how the volume element of the SU(3) atom the paper specifies the SU(3) atom with a range of 10^{15} meters. This is identical to the range of the strong force mediated by gluons. It doesn't include the EM interaction nor the weak force interactions associated with quarks. It also specifies this occurs at a threshold where no massless particles exist. However the problem I have with this is that the range of a force is determined by two factors. The mean lifetime of the mediator particle and the particles momentum term. "an energy threshold below which no massless particle exists " page 4 of above article. So if this threshold were somehow reached how can any atom or nucleon continue to exist and how can any mediation of the standard model that occur involving massless particles. this makes no sense to me every interaction we see today involving qluons or photons would no longer occur in the same manner as that would lead to conservation of mass energy violations of the baryon octet. the volume would also change and no longer be 10{-15} meters assuming its using gluons as they are somehow stable with a mass term being stable then the range of the SU(3) atom assuming its describing gluons would end up being infinite. If the photon were to acquire mass yet somehow remain stable you would end up with Lorentz invariance violations not compatible with GR itself. from article relevant equations for the above in terms of the photon symmetry break acquiring mass equation 4 \[\chi=\bar{\psi}_e\psi_e\] equation 5 \[\mathcal{L}_\chi=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \chi)^2-\mu^2\chi^2-\lambda \chi^4+e^2\chi^2A_\mu A^\mu\] equation 6 \[\langle \chi\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{2\omega}}\] results in photon mass equation 7 \[m_\gamma=e\langle\chi\rangle \le 10^{-18} ev\] if this had occurred photons having mass would no longer travel at c as no particle with mass can travel at c. secondly should the photon acquire mass \[\frac{1}{2}m_\gamma^2 A^\mu A_\mu\] then gauge symmetry is violated hence by gauge invariance it is forbidden and not be able to be a gauge theory under U(1) That last part is covered in QED.

May I suggest we examine the OP paper under two seperate categories. The old cosmological constant problem as per the vacuum catastrophe specifically why the error was so high for the calculated value. As opposed to the new cosmological constant problem of why is the measured value so close to zero. Doing this may help make better sense of the OP paper. I should have time this evening and tomorrow to add some mathematical detail for each latter applying Higgs.

Welcome aboard @azakv

I believe I may have found something that may prove useful in terms of the Meissner effect. It took considerable digging to find something applicable to the Meissner effect with regards to the different symmetry groups. https://sethna.lassp.cornell.edu/pubPDF/meissner.pdf I still don't agree that it would resolve the cosmological constant problems for much the same reasons as you also noted. I'm still digging around looking for decent articles to get more detail on the Meissner-Higgs effect the link above mentions most of the articles I've encountered are specifically condensed matter physics via Anderson-Higgs. This one isn't bad in so far as it contains missing details not included in the OP article https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106070 It actually addresses one of the questions I had asked earlier . Though it doesn't provide an effective equation of state the details in that last article can readily be used to determine an effective equation of state. However the problem still remains how to apply the needed boundary conditions to an ill defined SU(3] atom ? From last article "and the photon becomes massive" I know I've seen this examination before if I recall we had a discussion a few years ago on a Hubble bubble article that involved a potential phase transition that has not occurred yet but is mathematically viable where the Higgs field gains couplings to photons.

So what your saying is throw away all mainstream physics to allow this paper to work is that it? The point is that you apply all mainstream physics to any physics theory you don't randomly toss away the parts that don't agree with a paper.

No I'm not how one calculates the number density of particles of a field involves two specific equations. Bose-Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac- statistics. If you take the effective degrees of freedom of for example photons you would apply the first equation. However if it's a fermion you apply the second equation. That isnt numerology for the above method this is something the article in question cannot do as it hasn't defined an SU(3) atom. The above method is the main stream method for any particle count estimation. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_statistics#:~:text=In quantum statistics%2C Bose–Einstein,energy states at thermodynamic equilibrium. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi–Dirac_statistics

Integer numbers are whole numbers, fractions is a rational number There are actually peer reviewed literature on a dark particle sector that includes this possibility though for the time being lacks any observational evidence

It is is numerology when it doesn't apply any boundary conditions without the relevant proof of how those boundary conditions are being applied. Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles for the entirety of the SM model of particles. That estimation is based of the number density of photons using the Bose-Einstein statistics at 10^{-43} seconds so the 10^{123} value would entail conservation of energy mass violation. Lol keep it coming love the childishness ( little forewarning though one can lose their ability to use the reputation system.) Our forum has banned certain members in the past of their ability to use that system.)

Agreed on that

D Really how so ? Do you have a professional peer review article (not the paper under discussion) showing this ? Lmao for the record I really don't care how many negative rep points one throws my way when it comes to applying main stream physics to some paper or article. The reputation system means absolutely nothing to me. Edit: in point of detail that reputation system is easily abused beyond its intended purpose

It still doesn't provide the necessary details to do so. That's the point I have been trying to get across to you. The quantum harmonic oscillator equations that the article contains only has the degrees of freedom akin to a spring in motion at each coordinate that is the \[E=\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\] That the quantum harmonic oscillator describes. That equation doesn't encapsulate the relevant details to be applied to an SU(3) atom it doesn't include any of the additional degrees of freedom that would be required to describe any quantum harmonic uncertainty for such an atom. You would need to apply that equation to all the interactions via its relevant Greens functions under Fourier transformations. Let's try a rudimentary explanation to proton involves numerous different fields. Everyone can agree to this. Higgs fields (actually contains 4 fields) Em fields Strong force fields Weak force fields Now apply the above equation to each

The other problem that I see is that if one were to tally up the frequency modes and perform a frequency summation of the modes for SU(3) gauge interactions and apply the formula that led to the vacuum catastrophe then one would invariably end up with a far higher orders of magnitude error margin than those contained in the article. The article never did apply those formulas to any particular group in terms of its frequency modes