MJ kihara

That's not the way to look at....you should in a manner,the volume coming out of a blackhole...remember in holography volume is an illusion...

Am all a where of that....the universe is well evolving towards that...am trying to be careful however,I think we can get something out of that...or maybe learn more...

What am learning from you is that to get a solution of anything it's so difficult and requires complexity of mathematics beyond comprehension....what am asking myself is that,if there was such an attitude 120 years ago I doubt if the theories such as GR could have been accepted were it not for experimental support they got...almost majority of solutions are approximation. Am trying to think from a holographic perspective if there is an experiment that can be designed factoring in Bose Einstein condensate to look at 1/100^123 validity.

Back to square 1.

Surely...I asked you if the formulas employed by the author were wrong you never replied to that...the author is using physics mathematics,I don't understand which other way should someone reason to get a solution....?(I myself questioned the use of the term SU(3) atom given I had a diagram related to that, I was told to throw it down the sink..it's resisting the sink....am getting to know the jargon...who knows next round it's mathematics...)...what is correct is correct no matter the different language verbal or mathematic that one uses to give the solution.

I don't usually get along with mob justice.....there are no 100^123 atoms!😂

You are giving an answer and yet you can't see it from the explanations...soo weird.

Strong-weak duality.....strong force-gravitation... arbitrary chosen not because it gives desired answer but it's because it's the right parameter to choose and it gives the correct answer..otherwise from the duality which other parameter can you choose?

There is that fancy trend nowadays of trying to discredit any kind of achievement....where do you think breakthrough fundamental discoveries should come from?...paraphrasing people's ideas to suit you own discredit and proof them wrong,while not trying to answer why it is wrong..shows how rigid someone tend to be.

Sometimes am having problem accessing the thread. When I joined this forum I had a theory developed with sheer logical reasoning and minimum already established scientific facts like charges of a quark,and published a book about it in a most basic layman language,my background is not physics oriented but I believed we need a basic theory that someone need to go back to and make references from it's principles....and if this theory is the actual basic theory then answers should get along with it....that's a long story. My perspective come from the fact that if I compare what I have and assuming the calculations of the author is correct and putting the fact that he is comparing superconductor effects with dark matter/dark energy....to reconcile both concepts then holographic principle emerges as a natural solution...this is also bringing confusion to my understanding.. the reason then why the number of SU(3) units it's not getting a long with the number of photons and protons in the universe is the way this holograph is being projected,the projection 'might' being interfered with by quantum noise....the information is encoded on the surface of of SU(3) structure (remember this)... quantum noise is coming from quantum soup.... universe expansion reduces temperature hence reducing quantum noise overtime(refining the projection).....meaning the solution the author is introducing is a constancy of proportionality-the rate at which this refining is taking place i.e how the classical universe governed by GR is emerging from quantum world governed by QFT.....hope that's not too much.

I will tend to differ with your conclusion,the scale was not chosen randomly their is a reason behind it.what the author is doing is a continuation of arguments present in the video you posted above. I think if there was a specific directions such a solution is supposed to come from it should have been arrived at longtime ago. By the way,thanks for the video,it's a good learning material.

The universe is made up of approximately 5%visible matter,it depend with the nature of interaction... neutrinos are passing through you continuously some energetic than the photons that hit you in mid day sunlight...you are not scattered off.

My understanding of a graviton has been controversial if you go with my arguments as per my threads in this forum...if I introduce them here I will be accused of thread hijacking. Mordred is more qualified to answer that question...I have my concepts, he and other residential experts in this forum input and arguments offer guidance,esp when I stray too much to my concepts.

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics. The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective. For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger... Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

When you I think from a holographic perspective...mmmm...I think things turn out to be more complicated with huge implications...that would end up touching on the issue of Universe Age/evolution it's self..

..and what Joigus has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author? According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.

The author is dealing with spacetime its self...the layout of the universe it's self..the basic, fundamental vacuum....on page 16 he talks about sentience and self replication....I hope you now get the idea...that's why am talking of a concept from this forum a year ago, specifically speculation section?????????. I don't mean quantum noise. No further queries.

.....mmmm....the idea has been in this forum for almost a year before this paper was published but in a different perspective...it seems the concept is diffusing to other people or just a coincidence,I don't know...it's the concept that matters...I understand the defender...you won't agree with them..I think the author is getting math that happens to solve the cosmological constant issue...I don't know if he has further insight beyond that....I also would want to know if the author has ever visited this forum to get inspiration... nowadays information flows at lightening speed.the author is using a concept to solve an already existing problem.

Those defending this paper should tell us why the author is so obsessed with referring to 'vacuum atom' while it's clear that, is relating SU(3) symmetry with scale i.e scaling the the universe using SU(3) symmetry. On page 16 the author is talking of sentience and self replication....from his many references has he quoted every bit of sources and inspiration. Its a wonderful thing from the arguments how the figures are matching...relating nucleon size to the whole of universe,however,,the explanation is lacking when it comes to issues concerning dark energy and given the fact the universe continuous expansion beyond observable universe.

I hope I won't be crushed away as I follow the advice.... Phi for All Posted March 11, 2023 ".......Take baby steps so we know you're on firm ground before taking the next."...thread on Jumping out of a blackhole From what am learning from mainstream physics maths and concept maybe patience will pay.....May be..I appreciate and am greatful from the engagement I have in the forum.

When was the paper published..mmmm....

🙏 Thanks for the answers and explanations above... nothing else I can say more than that.

Is mass linear or nonlinear i.e don't we add up together mass?...E=mc^2 , individual parts with their masses doesn't their total mass give mass of total of the configuration....the discussion on thread page 5 is spinning off my head ...

Sometimes am having a problem accessing the thread..what a glitch... Riemann tensor has 256 components in 4d, Ricci tensor gets the averages/proportionality from Riemann tensor that tend to be more surface topological,Ricci tensor is more critical in constructing Einstein monifold..hope am not wrong on this. What I meant by interior of the monifold is the other aspects that may have not been captured while getting Ricci tensor.