38 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

 

That's not the actual volume if you have used it. 10^-15*10^-15*10^-15 cubic meter.

Try again it's simple powers and division if you want to use inches 3.9374 ×10^-14

How many 10^{-15} meters fits 1 meter. Recall the author specified volume as well.

Have you never learned exponent rules ? 

\[m^{-n}=\frac{1}{m^n}\]

So take \(10^{-15}=\frac{1}{10^{15}}\)

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by Mordred

Then 1/10^15*1/10^15*1/10^15 it must have been a typo on the statement you made above.

The author is using volume.

The authors unit is 10^-15 meters not meters^3 for range of force. Ie radius of each volume  but just in case I will check them later after my meeting. It was 1 am when I did that set so will recheck 

Edited November 3, 20241 yr by Mordred

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Then 1/10^15*1/10^15*1/10^15 it must have been a typo on the statement you made above.

The author is using volume.

Yeah your right good catch must have entered something wrong on calculator and didn't spot it. Too early in am last night. Still incredibly large energy  density 

Well above current cosmological constant in joules/meter^3 for simplicity we can ignore spherical 

10^45 ev/m^3 gives 1.60*10^26 joules/m^3

 

6 hours ago, Mordred said:

Yeah your right good catch must have entered something wrong on calculator and didn't spot it. Too early in am last night. Still incredibly large energy  density 

Well above current cosmological constant in joules/meter^3 for simplicity we can ignore spherical 

10^45 ev/m^3 gives 1.60*10^26 joules/m^3

 

If instead of using 1 eV per his SU(3) unit and use what he has provided after U(1) symmetry has broken as the effective photon mass 10^-18 eV I suppose you can recover the appropriate energy density.

Honestly I tried looking for extremely low order interactions, even the numerous graphs I looked through for any superconductor studies were well out of range.

Consider this a single electron has greater energy than the value you just gave. The least massive SM particle with mass being neutrinos but the momentum term is still an issue 

In all honesty the best chance to get the idea working and not a terrible idea in and of itself is simply get rid of the 10^123 factor.

Use the Bose-Einstein methodology would solve a great deal of the problem. It would be a very easy fix that way.

Thst would go a long way back to feasible by just dropping that 10^123.

Secondly use pions for the SU(3) atoms being the lightest meson and use the Maxwell boltzmann statistics to calculate number density.

No confusion now you have a clear defined state to work from. That would also open up a large body of similar studies involving QCD Meissner.

Epions actually require higher energy levels under SUSY so don't use a SUSY particle.

If it were me those would be the route to address the issues.

Edited November 4, 20241 yr by Mordred

Replacing SU(3) atoms term with pixel might help improve author's concept from a holographic perspective.

A solution is a solution because it can be arrived at from different perspective/methodologies....it's becoming clearer to me we might already had a solution,from an explanatory point of view...this is after trying to compare my approach, others approach;of course author's approach(OP) and explanations from Various sources such as this..

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3Dbl_wGRfbc3w&ved=2ahUKEwjCgqy36qSKAxXFfqQEHaMtO70QwqsBegQIIBAF&usg=AOvVaw135bqe_R6OrGVjR7q_uUE5