joigus

That's (more than likely) because you feed into the Maldacena conjecture theories that are related by S-duality in superstring theory, not because (or not necessarily so) of the correspondence itself (take good notice of the word 'when' in your quote). The correspondence itself seems to be something equally deep and perhaps not totally understood yet, although the holographic principle could well be a unifying / synthetic principle explaining it. Those are difficult ideas with considerable conjectural stretching at the seams. Wikipedia articles are accessible to all, full of references, valuable for many reasons. But clarity is not always one of them. That's part of the reason why I try to avoid using Wikipedia articles in order to argue anything, but just in order to attach a working definition for a term I have to mention. I don't like it so much (although I sure use it) because it's sometimes (or can be) rather obscure. I remember a seminar by Neil Turok in which he practically ended up dissuading his students from reading the Wikipedia article on Noether's theorem, because after many paragraphs the simple idea that off-shell symmetries imply on-shell conservation laws was not displayed at all in the article, while the reader ended up probably confused by the inordinate amount of side tracks and embelishments. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that. The paper about antigravity is from the '80s and largely forgotten. I seem to remember an Eötvös-like kind of experiment. But I wouldn't blame anyone for not remembering... As to cold fusion's infamous Fleishmann-Pons experiment, or the Gran Sasso neutrino fiasco, where have you been all these years? There you are. Feast your eyes. I've even included a Wikipedia article. The way you like it. Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123. Are you being silly on purpose? It's not a scary number; it's an embarrassing one. Any physicists worth their salt would be embarrassed by this mismatch. Aren't you? And it's not 123. It could be 122, or 120. Nobody knows exactly. It's a very rough estimate. Correction: I would believe it.

Not necessarily. SU(3) is just SU(3), a continuous group characterised in several ways: Its structure constants (commutation relations between generators), fundamental definition: 3x3 complex unitary matrices with det=1, etc. Strong force, OTOH, implies a coupling constant. There could be two copies of SU(3), both locally gauged (not global gauge group, like, eg, baryon number, but local, like EM), and each with a different coupling constant. One strong, and the other one very, very feeble. Almost undetectable. Why not? There is no such thing if by 'duality' you mean Maldacena duality. There is a strong-coupling to weak-coupling duality in superstring theory. Sharks can be fish, and they can be dishonest money loaners too. The word in itself doesn't clarify the situation. As @Mordred says, 'Moving the goalposts' does not even start to describe what's going on here. You have an SU(3) every time three complex wave functions get shuffled into each other in a continuous and unitary way, like u, d, and s quarks in the primitive eightfold way. It doesn't imply 'strong'.

Not exactly. You might be made up of an even number of fermions and thereby operate as a boson. But this is a very interesting point, that I've thought about many times. Let's assume for the sake of argument that you're made up of an odd number of fermions. Your wave function, after being rotated 360º (which for just one point in space looks like a sequence of two reflections) would be minus your original wave function. This has nothing to do with ordinary space. 'You' haven't been reflected at all. This all happens in the space of states (quantum amplitudes). So how do we know your wave function has changed its phase to produce a global minus sign? The only way to do it is to prepare a high number of indistinguisable Eises with the same number of fermions, and make that number be odd by design. Then make sure this number doesn't change. And lastly conceive of a way to make all these Eises interfere with each other (like for example throwing them through a double-slit screen). Something like that. Forgive me if the details of the experiment are not watertight.

First of all, as @Mordred pointed out, this is from Quanta Magazine, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication. Second of all, if that were true, it doesn't mean it validates the numerology of paper under discussion. Third of all, you chose to ignore morsels of language that are very relevant: [...] may be [...] [...] hints that [...] [...] If true, it would be [...] [...] It's possible we're seeing [...] And, above all, (from provided source; my emphasis.) All of that you interpret as "actually, vacuum dilutes [...]" I'm kinda old. I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not.

Thanks.

OMG. This thread should be renamed to "The whittling down of Kihara" . Anyway... You guys got the holographic principle wrong. It's actually more general than what I said. I referred to the inspirational idea which was the AdS/CFT duality, or gauge-gravity duality, etc. Anyway, the holographic principle refers to relating field in the bulk with field on the boundary of that bulk. I don't see how the crazy SU(3) background relates to that. @MigL and @Mordred seem to agree. But that's not the worst, this is a matter background, not a vacuum. A vacuum does not dilute with the expansion of the universe. A background does. (reprise)

Yes, exactly. Those are the cyclic rings, or discrete... They go under several names.

Ahem... No. Although weird or not is in the eyes of the beholder. I'm not giving an answer. I'm pointing out a mistake. Nothing should be weird about that. If you have a better understanding of what 'holographic' means in the context of field theory, and why it's relevant here, I'm all ears. Holographic in this context would mean that a particular gauge theory, presumably SU(3) being the gauge group on the surface of the cosmic horizon, is dual in a precise mathematical sense to a gravitational vacuum in the bulk (inside the cosmic horizon). In particular it must have the same degrees of freedom. I'm no expert on holographic field theory, but presumably the gauge theory would have to be highly constrained: Hamiltonian constraints, plenty of Lagrange multipliers, quantisation rules on the constraint surface in phase space. BRST quantisation perhaps. You know the drill... This should be so, I'm only guessing, so that the dual version is a simple scalar (actually a number) on the inside, which is what the vacuum looks like from the point of view of GR. That's not what our friends are telling us here. They're telling us the cosmic volume is filled with these SU(3) 'atoms', and that their volumetric count gives the energy content of the universe given by the cosmological constant. So no, it's not a surface-to-volume correspondence (so non-holographic), and no, I'm not giving an answer; and again no, I don't think it's weird what I'm saying.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of differences between us and them. Now that you mention it I seem to remember notes from some professor pointing out that one could either demand the existence of an non-zero identity or leave it out. And then rings with an identity would be 'ring with identity'. Like Zp with p prime. (Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not checking anything I'm saying here). The turn-around way that @Eise suggested, or the mirror way, or @StringJunky's yes-no, or @MigL's even/odd rule, or anything that's ultimately an involution (leaving fermions aside) would be perhaps the most intuitive way. Something like this: Ok, kids. Multiplying by 1 is: Nothing changes Multiplying by -1, on the other hand, is some kind of a 'switch'. When you switch the switching, it doesn't switch more. It just unswitches! It may sound silly, but kids generally get it when you give them examples like these. Semigroups and the like are for geezers like myself.

Good point. I was thinking of using reflections too, until I remembered fermions. I don't think children would care too much about fermions tho... I agree. Any other choice would give you problems with the distributive property and/or other equally fundamental properties though. After all, there must be a reason why we've been choosing that option and no other one has resulted in an interesting algebraic framing.

Nothing holographic going on on this thread, believe me. Don't get confused. 'Holographic' means a gauge theory on the boundary of a region can be seen as isomorphic in some sense to a gravitational theory in said region. I don't see where any of this is 'holographic'.

Nah, I wouldn't say that, although I see how you can think that. As I understand it, the main focus of this website is on discussion. There are sections that are particularly focused on education. I'd say this website's focus is quite good for setting you straight. Anyway. Welcome to the forums. So true. I tend to be very mathematical, always referring to the formalism, which scares people off sometimes. Not you.

I've always found it interesting that these dreams are recurring. Seems like the brain is bumping into morsels of code for unresolved issues... No wonder people have been trying to interpret dreams for millenia.

Yeah. Clearly the brain can't handle the narrative of the ongoing events. It's clear to me that his mind must have re-edited his immediate experience, so to speak. He was startled for some reason that could not be retrieved by the senses, and had this automatic reaction of removing the tubes, but not because of the scene repeating itself. Only later, when that nurse or doctor came in asking what's the matter, he "re-edited" his immediate memory as if it had been the looping had been the cause of his disturbance... His brain must have filled in the details of this illusion that the whole thing was happening because he was experiencing the looping. Why am I startled? Because the scene is repeating itself. Something like that. Weird. The OP's experience reminds me a lot of that, but without the 'parallel universes' version of it.

What length? Wavelength? Length of a light pulse? Btw radio waves are low-energy. What do you mean 'carry radioactivity'? Neutrons? Fissile material? Material for fusion? Electrons? (beta radiation) Helium nuclei? (alpha radiation). What you said is very ambiguous. x-posted with MigL

I totally agree. Perhaps under Psychology? The Schrödinger cat paradox is not about time looping round and round though. It's about two classically-incompatible realities coexisting in some way in a quantum state. Very different. A very close friend of mine who underwent a very serious surgery (transplant) years ago once told me of an experience he had when he was under the effects of a very powerful drug. He forcibly removed either one or several of the tubes that the doctors had stuck in him, and one of the hospital personnel run towards him asking 'what's the matter?', and he responding 'this scene is repeating itself!' It was obviously a hallucination, but he told me it made him doubt for a moment whether causality was being violated there! : What caused what?

Good point. You are not scattered off a neutrino. The neutrino is. At least it's a more natural way to say it. The reduced mass of you+neutrino is the mass of the neutrino, and the CoM frame coincides with your subjective frame of reference whence you see the neutrino. Anyway, neutrinos do scatter off material scatterers ever so lightly ans slightly, and rarely. And there are such things as inverse beta decay. That's why I mentioned the coupling constant, Otherwise, how do we know they even exist? Mind you, at high-enough energy, anything scatter by exchanging the appropriate particle. Example: Photons can scatter off photons at the W-boson-production range of energies. (From https://physicsworld.com/a/light-can-scatter-from-light-cern-physicists-confirm/#:~:text=In classical electrodynamics%2C photons cannot,charged fermions or W bosons.)

@Albert2024, @JosephDavid, and the other guy, Let's hammer it home again. At some point somebody among you will understand (one can only hope). No vacuum in QFT has external legs. The vacuum in QFT is made up of things that look like, This means, in a manner of speaking, that the amplitudes (infinitely many of them) go from nothing to nothing. The vacuum state gives zero as expected value for the number operator of each and every particle. That, people, is what we call a vacuum. And thereby the name. A vacuum ultimately has nothing in it, except for amplitudes of something appearing there, and swiftly disappearing, according to quantum rules (HUP). Vacuum = nothing. Doh! OTOH, In the diagramatics of QFT, the "vacuum" this "paper" seems to be talking about would look something like this, That is, it has external legs (real particles that go from \(t=-\infty\) to \(t=+\infty\). In the picture I've represented a triplet of SU(3). It could be an octet, or whatever. Maybe not even an irreducible rep. of SU(3). What have you. It would have ramifications displaying vacuum polarisation, and so on. The point is: This is no vacuum. These "atoms" are there, and they keep there. Do you understand? Do you? Really? Do you, at long last, understand? Precision tests of the standard model would have detected this background (rather than vacuum) long ago, because other particles would scatter off these "atoms" copiously (among other things they would have to be 1043 times more abundant than nucleons and electrons, and 1033 times more abundant than photons. So, presumably, your beloved paper has been turned down experimentally ages ago. Remember this comment, which you also chose to ignore?: Maybe it's another completely different SU(3) gauge group, with its own coupling constant and all. You tell me. I don't have to read the article, as per SFN rules. If my arguments are wrong or misplaced, then answer them, instead of cajoling each other with idle pleasantries and even idler reputation points, plus meaningless punishing -rep points, as @Mordred pointed out. And that will be all, unless you finally come up with real counter-arguments from physics. Bye.

My recollections coincide with @studiot's. Rule. Trying to think about it afresh, if you accept that 1+(-1)=0, which seems far more intuitive, as well as (-1)*0=0 and (-1)*1=-1, the distributive property forces you to admit that, 0=(-1)*0=(-1)*(1+(-1))=(-1)*1+(-1)*(-1)=-1+(-1)*(-1) so (-1)*(-1) must be 1, which is the additive inverse of -1. I'm not sure that would be very persuasive to children though... I love this joke. It works in Spanish with "sí, sí" too. The intonation is essential.

ChatGPT, is that you?

It seems to be an either cookies, else subscribe wall. They never guess right what adds I'm interested in, so I always take them with the default settings.

Yes, thank you. I mixed up the energy (temperature) scales with the length scales, which are inverse to each other. 😊

I said this because there are about 1080 nucleons within the cosmological horizon. Nucleons are SU(3)-bound states. And 10123=1043*1080. I don't know about the holographic principle in this context. The reasoning is clearly non-holographic, as it refers to a volume content of gauge interactions giving rise to a volume content of vacuum energy density.

Agreed. A "vacuum" made up of SU(3) bound states wouldn't have the properties required to give rise to a cosmological constant, due to assymptotic freedom and confinement. Very clearly in particular due to confinement. How would these atoms push each other apart? At extremely low temperatures there's no interaction, and at high temperatures it's constantly producing more and more "lines of force" among every member of the triplet. So it's a no go for that reason too, IMO. I'd been thinking about that too, but generally I prefer to look for the quickest, simplest reason why an idea wouldn't work. This is not to be spiteful. It's for the sake of saving thinking time. You need to rule out bad ideas as quickly as possible. I also think that should be done before attempting any laborious calculation.

Yes, I remember having started to think about it when you mentioned Feynman diagrams. Sorry I didn't credit you. OTOH, now that I think of it, I don't even know what it means to say that there are 10123 particles of a given kind in the vacuum. Let alone SU(3) bound states!!! Why not virtual Vanadium atoms? No, really. Why not? The vacuum in QFT is made up of infinitely many Feynman diagrams with no external legs. They are all ultimately loops, and there are infinitely many of them, of course. The expectation value of the number operator is always zero for the vacuum though.