Mordred

That's something I do not see within the article. What is precisely an SU(3) atom ???? SU(3) being a gauge group would use the effective degrees of freedom that would require something akin to the Gell-Mann matrices Which by itself isn't enough to describe a proton particularly if one were to say apply the CKMS mass mixing matrix to the protons mass terms you require U(1), SU(2) as well as SU(3) for the relevant Higgs, Dirac and Yukawa couplings. SU(3) wouldn't even provide the relevant details to apply Breit Wigner to the cross section and its the Breit Wigner that is used for resonant particles to determine the particles mean lifetime. So try as I might I cannot even begin to visualize what a SU(3) atom would even behave like. How so as a particles mean lifetime is described by Breit Wigner for its decay rate ? Here https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485

I am more than aware of precisely how the vacuum catastrophe occurred I have also seen far far better examinations than anything presented here on a viable solution. That paper isn't one of them. At no point have I lost sight of the goal.

ah now I understand here is a little secret a dimension is nothing more than an effective degree of freedom or independent variable or other mathematical object. It is not some alternate reality. take spacetime 4d { ct,x,y,z} each term is a dimension as each term can change value without any dependency on any other term. That is all a dimension is in physics. A dimension can also be strictly mathematical without any physical reality just as you can have strictly mathematical spaces such as phase space or momentum space. These are simply graphs fundamentally The entire standard model of particles via the Euler Langrangian is nothing more than the effective path integrals with probability statistics which unfortunately is necessary but that's a simple reality that the quantum regime has shown us

I'm assuming your the author as your the one defending the paper. I am showing the factors the author never looked at in his paper. The gauge groups the author refers to involve the equations of motion for each group. those groups have scalar, vector and spinor field relations not included in his paper. That paper only has first order terms without any vectors involving nothing more than scalar quantities. Now you understand exactly why I do not accept any validity in that paper. It s poorly examined.

so you can't do as I asked to explain how this statement is possible got it. I provided the U(1) gauge for you and you cannot take that and produce a spin zero Langrangian equation of motion

you claim to produce using the Meissner effect to explain the cosmological constant the last equation is the equation of state for Lambda how can you not see the relevancy if you knew what you were tallking about or had actually understood how it would apply to QFT ? would you like me to produce the spin zero statistics for spin zero in Langrangian form or have you done that already ? would you prefer to work from the SU(3) langrangian ? I can provide that as well or the SU(2) ? it is the Langrangian equations of motion for radiation or matter that is used to determine the effective equations of state for radiation and matter

I don't think you fully understand what I am asking if you can do what I am about to ask then you might have something. here is the U(1) Langragian Single Gauge field U(1) [latex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu A_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu[/latex] we can use the Meissner effect Langrangian given by equation 11 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07414 produce spin statistics zero to satisfy w=-1 via \[w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2-V\dot{\theta}}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2+V\dot{\theta}}\] where w=-1

Are right let's assume the Meissner effect is the cause of the cosmological constant. The cosmomogical constant became dominant roughly when the universe was 7 billion years old . Prior to the CMB Why do we not see any evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB which directly involves Compton scatterrings ? Or any evidence of any nearby charged plasma of superconductivity ? Let alone any evidence of Lambda having a spin statistics suitable for a charged field ? Mainstream physics treatments Lambda would have a spin statistics zero spin (0) specifically a scalar field with no associated vector field or spinor field. No one is arguing the Meissner effect isn't viable. It's your application on a universe scale that is the issue

From that last article "remains intact near zero Kelvin, forming the foundational atoms of vacuum energy". For your Meissner effect. So the answer when you convert the GeV to Kelvin for our entire universe history Has never occurred with regards to that papers SU(3) atom. At no point in our universe history has that process occurred as 2.73 Kelvin is still too hot.

Why are all your papers from the same author can you not provide a decent reference done by any other author ? Has it not occurred to you I don't trust anything written by that author as a valid reference ?

No you haven't look at the temperature history of the early universe if it helps you can simply inverse the scale factor. At no point in our universes temperature history will you have anything close to producing the transition temperature for the Meissner effect.

Great you can start with calculating what temperature 10^(15) GeV is Given that 1 electronvolt=11600 Kelvin. Exactly what temperature do youvrequire for the Meisnner effect ? At what point in the early universe temperature evolution would meet that condition ?

Fine but that burden of proof is in your court. You need to mathematically prove your case and not rely on other questionable works. What you just described is not what is described by main stream physics hence why this thread is moved. You will need far more than just 10 or less formulas to prove your case . Have you for example factored in the weighted roots of the SU(3) group for its weighted probability currents ? Have you looked at the individual phase amplitudes concerning a particles cross section ? Have you done any calculations using the Hamiltons for each group ? You haven't even been able to describe yourself in mathematical detail what an SU(3) atom is to begin with so how can anyone determine any validity ?? The weighted roots of a group specifically detail the symmetries of said group. I still don't understand how the detail The universe started at a hot dense state escapes you it has been cooling down due to expansion ever since. If you do the conversion 10^(19) GeV will be extremely close to the Planck temperature at the opposite end of the temperature scale than that of a Bose Einstein condensate

You might want to use a textbook instead of that paper. A quark for example cannot apply strictly SU(3) gauge to describe its interactions but requires the three gauge groups to describe its interactions SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) the quark generations are also involved all quarks do not drop out of thermal equilibrium at the same time nor does each member of each generation. When an atom drops out of thermal equilibrium one can deploy the Saha equations... Hydrogen drops out later than deuterium for example.

You do understand the concept that SU(3) is a gauge group and not any individual particle or atom correct ? Is that not somehow relevant ? Each particle can use different gauge gauge groups including group combinations. Each particle drops out of thermal equilibrium at different times that depends on each particles cross section for the temperature where they will drop out. Which depends on the expansion rate as well.

Can you provide any formula or calculstion specifically your own any derivative specifically describing an SU(3) atom. Can you provide any equation of state specific to an SU(3) atom ?

Your paper you posted here only had less than 10 formulas All of which didn't show any additional details showing the relevant equations for the Meisner effect. As I mentioned your paper does not have the needed details without searching other literature to piece together what your thinking.

Yes but that isn't a supercooled state for the meissner effect particularly since the universe is charge neutral

Electroweak symmetry breaking is the opposite range of the temperature scale from absolute zero. The early universe temperatures are far higher than today Roughly 10^16 GeV it is trivial to convert GeV to Kelvin so why are you stating absolute zero for any symmetry breaking ? I also shouldn't need to go through dozens of links to get details that should be inclusive in your article. The article you posted had only the more common quantum harmonic calculation that does not include the phases requiring SU(3). At best only requires U(1). The Snyder portion you simply had the computations. In essence You haven't got your own calculations involved for how your determining the SU(3) atoms included in article which is essentially forcing the reader to search your huge link history trying to guess how your putting it together. In so far as the critical density that value varies over time it was far higher in the past than today. That will affect your second equation if I recall in the denominator terms. The critical density formula uses the Hubble parameter which is also far higher in the past than the value today. So you may want to look into that detail. The reason I asked about the equation of state is that you need to confirm your theory can keep that value constant as per observation evidence of the Lambda term.

Your welcome its often tricky to see beyond the mathematics so we're glad to help. Lol I lost count on how many times getting lost in the math and lose sight of what the math is representing so can readily understand the difficulty

So from the peer review article mentioned above which only has summation equations one must know what elements are likely included in the allow and the density of each alloy. As that peer review article is extremely short It didn't indicate anything beyond that I didn't see any methodology of detection Am I correct on the above ?

Your looking at Migl's statement wrong. Let's use an simple everyday world example. Let's use an electrical circuit. Take a multimeter on a wire conducting some current. If you take the leads to two point is on the wire itself you cannot measure a voltage. However if you add some load via say a resistor you can. That is an everyday example of potential difference. Now let's apply that to our spacetime field. If every coordinate on that field has precisely the same potential energy (potential energy is energy due to location under field treatment) then gravity effectively is zero. However if there is potential energy differences between coordinate A and coordinate B such as due to a center of mass then you have a gravity term in Newton terms the gradient. Now under GR using the full equation \[E^2=(pc^2+m_o c^2)^2\] When applied to every coordinate of a field you immediately recognize that both massless particles as well as massive particles can affect the geometry. However the equation also includes their momentum terms so their vectors or spinors also are involved. Under the stress energy momentum tensor the energy density is the \(T_(00)\) component. The diagonal components, (orthogonal components are the Maximally symmetric components) However there are off diagonal components stress, strain,and vorticity these components have symmetry to gas and fluid flow ie through a pipe for everyday examples. So take a vector field of particles each particle follows its own geodesic those geodesics can converge or diverge from one another as they do so they generate non linearity as they induce curvature terms. When curvature occurs you are naturally inducing acceleration (direction change is also part of acceleration its not just the change in the velocity magnitude) Edit cross posted with Markus were both providing the same answer (Stress energy momentum tensor relations of a multi particle field). To make things more complicated each particle of the above field example is interacting with other particles so now our field now has continous changes in velocity. We can now only average all the numerous curved paths (linearization of a nonlinear system) which is never exact. The above demonstrates why a tensor field is required. As mentioned a tensor field includes magnitude, vector and spinor relations. The same applies to a curve you can only average the length of the curve. The extrenums (Maxima and minima) a function is always a graph (but not all graphs are functions for a graph to have a function it must pass a horizontal and vertical test (off topic). https://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/classes/calcI/minmaxvalues.aspx#:~:text=The function will have an,domain or at relative extrema.

Yes you already stated that above

May be helpful to include the peer review article which includes the related mathematics and methodology. In case you wish to post those related mathematics here (recommended) the latex structure uses the \[ latex\*] tag for new line inline \(latex\*) the * is simply there to prevent activation.

I prefer reading the arxiv copy if others feel the same https://arxiv.org/abs/2311.00856 The spectral densities involving luminosity to mass functions will obviously be stronger than the CGM near the Galactic Bulge however the area covered by the CGM is far far greater so although the density may be higher the total mass distribution could very well be greater in the CGM region than in the Galaxy Bulge and disk regions. I would have to study the article again to confirm