Mordred

Not too bad let's change the terminology a bit The electrons are effectively Operators they are the external lines on a Feymann diagram. The intermediate field is simply put the propogator (this is where virtual particles are applied.) The field is also an operator but the region of the transformation mathematics between the incoming and outgoing particles is the propogator action which is also a field but then so are the electrons as field excitations. Hence the Operstor and propogator action separation. Virtual particles are oft described as field fluctuations (cannot be localized ) where field excitations can be localized via a Dirac Delta function (Fourier transformation)

That was where I was thinking it may be a more accurate solution for the new cosmological problem as opposed to the old cosmological problem Weinberg has an article where he looked at that with regards to the anthropic models he used to push. Peebles also has a relevant paper distinguishing between the two. The problem is the OP has both though only describes both conditions having the relevant mathematics for the former which I had a different example on top of page one. The new Cosmological problem is why is the value so close to zero. The old problem was as you described. So your guess is as good as mine on that as I honestly do not see how the OP could possibly think the SU,(3) atoms could resolve either without including an energy mass term done using the method as my example on page 1 . The problem is there are 8 gluon fields so if you run calculations and apply over all 8 gluon fields for the 10^-15 meter value you would end up with even higher numbers than both problems the gluon mediation range is the effective range of 10^-15 meters. The reason for 8 gluon fields is the color mediation between quark combinations

A suggestion instead of looking at physical objects its seems to me you could simply examine the problem using wavelength.

Get rid of a need for an arms race good luck on that though.

There is a detail I need to reiterate. The paper requires a symmetry break that has not occurred even though every gauge group involved already has had a symmetry break event including U(1) as well as SU(3),the SU(2) symmetry break is when the W and Z bosons acquired mass. U(1) symmetry breaking is when electrons gained mass leaving photons massless. The SU(3) symmetry break quarks gained mass. This paper needs another symmetry break of U(1) to make photons massive. It conjectures this somewhere near absolute zero.

Lol truthfully I'm enjoying the paper itself it's fairly clear cut and we'll written.

Examples here Higg's inflation possible dark energy http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738 http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755 http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801 Any of these papers are usable they have the mathematics behind the Higgs as the cosmological constant Had the paper in the OP been of similar level I would be all for the concept

The issue with the paper isn't the concept behind the paper. I don't actually don't have an issue with the concept. The problem with the paper is that it doesn't show what it describes in the mathematics of the paper to give any means of testability. It has numerous areas where the paper makes little to no sense by its ommisions. For example if the paper had used something like Anderson-Higgs to U(1] symmetry break for class 2 superconductivity and had actually defined the SU(3) atom as something more concrete than simply providing the range of the nuclear force. Then I would be all for the idea it's not a terrible idea that's not the issue I have. The problem is as it's written it's largely unusable. To be honest in many I hope the author can develop a better written paper with a more accurate treatment. Unfortunately knowing what I do on the physics involved the best I can give is that the concept needs improvement in its development. That's just me being honest of my opinion on closer inspection of the paper. In many ways the concept has similarities with numerous Higgs as the Cosmological constant papers the unused field of the Higgs mechanism giving rise to the cosmological term. Which would closely follow the concepts of the paper.

I withdraw my comment about the math being correct. The author slipped in the theoretical bound from particle data group. It is the theoretical bound without photon coupling to Higgs. All he has done with his Lanqrangian equations of motion used do not include Higgs at all nothing they are QED only without Higgs.... \[\chi=\bar{\psi}_e\psi_e\] Being the EM field adjoint and bispinor in that order respectively on the RHS. The rest of his expressions cannot give couplings to photons as it is the photons mediating those fields above. Those photons would already be offshell as mediators.

Came across a rather clear cut yet humorous prerequisite for an article thought I would share it lol. "No prerequisites are required beside the standard courses of a Master in theoretical physics." Good article though lmao. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2110.14504

Give the boy a cell phone instead of a landline if that helps lol

Great how much energy does each SU(3) atom contain ? How many SU(3) atoms will you need per cubic meter will you require to address the energy value given by the Zero point energy calculation provided in the article ?. Go ahead perform that calculation Or did we forget that is what article is supposed to be about in the first place ? The total number of SU(3) atoms included the universe is irrelevant the article is about the energy density per volume. I assumed the methodology used Andersen Higgs type 2 superconductivity but when I went through the Langrangians in the article realized that wasn't even in the article. I posted a link above few posts back with that theory but it's irrelevant as it's not included in the articles Langrangian equations. This is the Langrangian equations in the article I mentioned the relevant issues with gauge invariance in the quoted section. This article details Anderson Higgs. https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106070 It was more in reply to Migls previous post question as to one possibility.

Doesn't matter the method is wrong you cannot maintain conservation of mass energy by dividing particle interaction volume into the universe. There is no value given for how much each individual SU(3) has for its energy or mass. It simply doesn't work. That should be obvious

The problem with the article is the missing required details. The mathematics do not provide the needed details. I have spent considerable time over the weekend trying to figure out the authors missing details via his references and they don't even fill in the blanks.

You don't divide the range of a particles influence for the number density or number of particles that is plain wrong. You can have an infinite number of bosons in the precise same space. You can only have 1 fermion in the same state in a given space. At any point in the article has the author given an energy mass value of an SU(3) atom ? No it isn't there, so how can it possibly be used to calculate the energy density ?

Those mathematics do not describe an SU(3) atom. They do not describe the Meissner effect They do not describe what the theory is about. None of the math is the authors own. The only formula that belongs to the author is the division of his SU(3) atoms into the volume of the Observable universe.

I recognize every formula in that article. Every treatment is something done in other literature without exception. Where the errors are isn't the math it's in his descriptives and how it attempts to apply them Those formulas do not describe anything beyond what can be found in common textbooks.

Night

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