Leaderboard

A recent idea offers a new perspective on one of the biggest mysteries in physics: the nature of dark energy. This proposal suggests that dark energy—the mysterious force driving the universe's expansion—could resemble a superconducting state of matter, composed of roughly 10^123 small "units" called SU(3) atoms, which stabilize the vacuum energy. The approach relies on well-established physical principles, such as the Meissner effect (seen in superconductors) and the third law of thermodynamics. According to this idea, at extremely low temperatures, the Meissner effect breaks U(1) symmetry while leaving SU(3) symmetry intact. To calculate the number of these SU(3) atoms in the universe, one could divide the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a proton, arriving at approximately 10^123 atoms. This number aligns precisely with quantum field theory (QFT) predictions for vacuum energy density, potentially resolving the long-standing discrepancy between theoretical calculations and observed values. What makes this idea compelling is its simplicity—it requires no exotic extensions or fine-tuning, sticking to established physics. It also proposes that the third law of thermodynamics keeps these SU(3) units stable at very low temperatures, ensuring that the vacuum energy remains consistent. This experimentally grounded and straightforward approach makes it worth considering: could this be the answer we've been searching for, or are there significant challenges that still need addressing? For those interested, you can read the paper here: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2778290.

I thought this was funny when I heard it on a film I watched the other day so... "I started reading a book about zero gravity I couldn't put it down"

You are welcome

The third law of thermodynamics ensures that the proton will not decay, as it stabilizes the SU(3) symmetry of the strong force near absolute zero, preventing the breakdown of this structure. This also explains quark confinement—quarks remain bound within protons because the SU(3) units cannot be broken or annihilated. The third law of thermodynamics thus guarantees both proton stability and quark confinement by preserving the SU(3) structure at low temperatures.

Does that mean the proton will never decay?

The paper is foundational, intriguing, and well comprehended. Could this suggest that massless gluons are indeed strong candidates for explaining dark energy?

Nothing.

This would mean laws change from week to week, according to popular opinion. Problem 1: nobody knows what's legal today, since there isn't time to publish the information before things change again. Problem 2: the legal system can't keep up with the changes. If what was illegal and carried a 2-year sentence three weeks ago and it's just become legal, do all of those prisoners have to be let out? Problem 3: News broadcasters, tabloids, celebrities and social media personalities would have immediate influence on everything. Even women's fashions last at least six months! Shouldn't the law of the land be at least as durable? This is completely different from elections. How is it a lie to prefer one candidate overwhelmingly? If I had to rate the current presidential candidates in the US, I'd be hard-pressed to refrain giving one of them a -10. That's no lie. What percentage of voters is likely to feel this way? A large percentage doesn't indicate insincerity, it indicates the relative popularity of candidates. In no way does this follow. It's unlikely that the majority of voters prefer a candidate who would enslave their fellow citizens. Why not also punish them for vanity, procrastination, lust, ambition, a short temper and a taste for chocolate? It's not the state's job to second-guess why each voter made the choice they did and correct them.

A tariff IS a tax. When you buy something, nec209, who pays the tax ? Is your understanding of economics comparable to D Trump's ?

I've never looked inside a play station but I am assuming you want to lubricate the dvd mechanism ? Singer oil is a good light machine oil but tends to attract dirt and dust so is not really suitable as most parts will be self lubricating if clean. Firstly nylon or other plastic gears, worms etc should not be lubricated. Secondly parts should be cleaned before any lubrication, air dusters are good for this. Plastic slideways, door flaps etc can be lubricated with silicone spry lubricant and there may be one or two points where a tiny spot of silicone grease would help

The materials that exhibit the Meissner effect, confirmed in superconducting states, are part of the universe governed by the SU(3) × U(1) symmetry. When these materials enter the superconducting state at near absolute zero, they are effectively governed only by SU(3), as the U(1) symmetry is broken. This demonstrates that, in their superconducting state, these materials align with the behavior of the vacuum where only SU(3) symmetry remains unbroken. the authors argued for that in details in their JCAP papers https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012

Look at the table in the paper that outlines the temperature scales at which symmetry breaking occurs. As far as I understand from reading the paper, the universe began in the radiation-dominant era, where all particles were massless due to the extremely high temperatures (around 10^16 GeV and 10^29 K). At this stage, all symmetries (SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)) were unbroken, and the universe was dominated by radiation energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, it reached the electroweak symmetry breaking scale (around 100 GeV, or approximately 10^15 K), where the electroweak symmetry broke, leading to the creation of mass. This marked the beginning of the matter-dominant era, where mass formed and matter became the dominant energy source. As the universe continued cooling, it transitioned into the dark energy-dominant era, where dark energy drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. In the current era, with an energy scale around 10^-3 eV and a temperature of 2.7 K, only SU(3) remains unbroken, while the experimental Meissner effect has broken U(1) at low temperatures. The authors argue that SU(3) is stabilized by the third law of thermodynamics, preventing further symmetry breaking. The third law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible to reach zero Kelvin by any finite number of physical cooling steps, implying that there is always a remnant volume that never vanishes, unlike what would happen according to ideal gas theory at absolute zero. This remnant volume appear to be the proton volume, and that may explain why proton has never been observed to decay. The reference to absolute zero is significant, as it emphasizes that at these extremely low temperatures, SU(3) remains unbroken, stabilizing the vacuum energy and providing a solution to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant discrepancy, as noted by Weinberg, arises because quantum field theory (QFT) predicts a vacuum energy proportional to the fourth power of the Planck energy, resulting in an enormous value of 10^76 GeV, while the observed vacuum energy density is about 10^-47 GeV—a difference of 10^123 orders of magnitude. The mathematical approach of the paper is key to resolving this discrepancy. The author redefined the Lagrangian of QCD by dividing it by the 10^123 atoms of SU(3) that are realized to exist in the universe. This redefinition stems from the insight that there are approximately 10^123 atoms of vacuum energy based on the volume of the universe divided by the proton volume. When computing the vacuum energy density from this modified Lagrangian, the result matches the observed value precisely, solving the cosmological constant problem. I recommend reviewing the table in the paper for a clearer understanding of these phases and how they relate energy and temperature scales to symmetry-breaking events in the universe If you read the paper, it is solidly based on the experimental Meissner effect, which shows that U(1) symmetry is experimentally broken at low temperatures, leaving SU(3) as the remaining symmetry close to absolute zero. The paper’s entire premise relies on this experimentally verified Meissner effect. Additionally, I have read another paper by the same author, where they demonstrated that dark energy represents a superconducting state of matter. This paper was published in JCAP, a highly prestigious journal. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012

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

Where did you get that? Trump is not a credible source of data. “At least 65 troops died in hostile action” under Trump https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/01/13/trump-falsely-claims-no-terrorist-attacks-no-wars-during-his-presidency/ He escalated engagement in existing conflicts https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2021/01/20/trump-the-anti-war-president-was-always-a-myth/

That’s true - but it also has many symmetries in GR, hence only 20 of those are functionally independent. The Riemann tensor can be decomposed into two parts - the Ricci tensor, and the Weyl tensor. Suppose you have a small ball of test particles freely falling in a spacetime. The Ricci tensor tells you how fast the volume of this ball changes with time, whereas the Weyl tensor measures how the shape of the ball gets distorted as it falls. In vacuum, shapes get distorted, but volumes are preserved during free fall (hence the Ricci tensor vanishes, but the Weyl tensor doesn’t). In the interior of sources, both shapes and volumes may change. Mass itself adds linearly, but the source term in the field equations is not mass, but the energy-momentum tensor.

I explore multiple models and haven’t paid for any. For ones that are free for everyone, Gemini and Metas Llama are excellent

I use Brave Search and its AI/LLM (Mixtral 8x7B and Mistral 7B)will knock out an answer and provide the website pages it drew its information from on the bottom. I see it as a more sophisticated Google page. I find it an OK starting point for queries.

As I was leaving the art museum, I got arrested for stealing a painting. I don't understand. Earlier when I asked the guide if I could take a picture, he said yes.

OK no PM; how about the boxing gloves approach? Might beat some sense into both of them 😄 .

It is is numerology when it doesn't apply any boundary conditions without the relevant proof of how those boundary conditions are being applied. Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles for the entirety of the SM model of particles. That estimation is based of the number density of photons using the Bose-Einstein statistics at 10^{-43} seconds so the 10^{123} value would entail conservation of energy mass violation. Lol keep it coming love the childishness ( little forewarning though one can lose their ability to use the reputation system.) Our forum has banned certain members in the past of their ability to use that system.)

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

As far as I understand from the paper, SU(3) is confined within a scale of about 10^{−15} meters, which can be referred to as the "atom," "unit," "range," or any term that reflects the effective size of SU(3)'s action. When one divides the volume of the universe by the effective volume of one SU(3) "atom," one gets the precise number of these SU(3) units that matches exactly the value needed to resolve the cosmological constant problem, showing how the vacuum energy density is determined by the total number of these SU(3) "atoms" in the universe. The paper is entirely founded on previously published research by the same author, which proposed that dark energy is a superconducting state of matter. This work was published in the prestigious journal JCAP https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012

The Meissner effect is covered in Section II of the paper, and it's important to note that resolving the issues between QFT and GR isn't about the number of equations. Instead, it's about understanding key physical concepts. For example, de Broglie’s introduction of wave-particle duality or Pauli's conceptual explanation of spin didn’t rely on a flood of equations but rather on profound physical insights that shaped modern physics. Similarly, this paper is built on well-established experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and shows that the discrepancy between QFT and GR in calculating vacuum energy density stems from a misunderstanding of these underlying physical principles, not a lack of equations. The goal is to merge QFT and GR through clear conceptual understanding, rather than by adding more speculative postulates or mathematical complexity Read sections II and III that contains the equations that describes these SU(3) atoms. This is the version of the paper that contains all detailed equations https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4783308

Interesting conjecture the paper itself seems to be rather lacking in certain details. For example I couldn't see anything I could use to determine an effective equation of state for the cosmological term itself for any means of testability using observation. If I'm missing that could you provide how an effective of state would be derived from the article. I also didn't see how one applies thermodynamic relations such as any pertinent temperature contribution via the Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac statistics so I can only assume what you refer to as an SU(3) atom is and of itself not a particle contribution. It also surprises me you didn't include the relevant equations to the quantum harmonic oscillator in momentum space which led to the vacuum catastrophe. That detail is described under the minimally coupled scalar field langrene.

My name is Antigone, initials A.A.P. My username (Alysdexic) is supposed to distinguish from the common pun name Lysdexic (when I found out there were and are too many), in my usage the opposite of dyslexic, but also began as a pun on Alexander the Great who never lost, and my middle name (Alexandra). I took two years each of fýsics, kemistry, and anthropologhy and maths up to linear algebra. I grew up with a supermarket dictionary and encyclopedia set; that and teachers were my best friend. I didn't socialize with my peers. I went to college at 11 and 12, qualified for every entry level class, but left due to astigmatism [which after adult college I got rid of by pressing on my lenses, inspired by hard contacts, after toric soft and flimsy]. I became obsessed with the origin of words and how Englisc became English then Norman then Einglish. I make appeals to etýma often and will dispute improper professional or standard terms and diction; for this I'v been indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia for puttan claims of black holes in the subjunctive instead of the indicative (and many other places for the same, on other topics, usually with mass false reporting). Earlier this year I made a video that formally accused 60 "scientists" of fraud for their black hole work. The huge amount of time I spent on Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and dictionaries, and the cognitive dissonanty their nonliteral or abusive or contradictory expressions or claims gave me led to a few nervose breakdowns where I gave up on Einglish (Standard English in usual terms) and tried to reconstruct all the lost forms in a modern reflex so that absurdities of self-contradiction or categhory error are forfended. That time I had also looked at standard interpretations of scientific concepts, overdid them with proper diction and relation, identified loopholes in thermodýnamic laws, found that black holes and radiation pressure don't exist, found the weak interaction isn't elementary, and found that the field and body are identical. Many years ago I had my first online contact with members of the racist revisionist creationist cult Kristian Identity which gave me the motivation to read the two testaments in their original languages and Strong's Concordance to see whether their claims, which they took from mistranslations millennia later, held up. I then kept my own notes of passages I found contradictory with other passages; translations and context did not help, and commentaries and sermons often ignore both. The objections I found did not wane or weaken over the decade plus I'v been in debates with theists. I'm intolerant of common illiteracy, malliteracy, and misuse and miswitth of words. If anyone cannot understand me, spend more time in dictionaries and Wikipedia, where some can pick up on the roots I browk. My spelling and ghrammatics are in refective English, Latin, and Hellènic, which sometimes autocomplete on my phone takes away if I'm in a hurry (the pathologhic need to argue is a good thing, but I can onely dictate and drive). I am generally sour and talk suchly to fulfil a need, a very deep one. If I am ever hindering the needs of other members here or anywhere, they hav not formerly expressed their needs (and ouht). Folk often meet me with rashness and, because they hav some power and I hav none but my words because I am a forever visitor, they cut me off in some way rather than talk in kind. I respect those who make an effort to understand, instead of handwave or run or flagrantly insult.

I fear politics,hope will not be classified as interference....the kind of intolerance Trump faces from the other side is astonishing.....we can't throw someone off cliff because of a mere fact,his facts are false or he entertains fake news...anyway welcome to the new era of AI we need to know and elvolve to live in the new era....being obsessed with proving facts is also a form of extremizim....am from outside your region where majority would not support Trump.We need a lot of irritation to our ears....given a chance I would vote Trump big time.

lets put it this way from what I read via the Research-gate copy as I don't care to join Inspire are far too few to really describe the theory in the article nor many of its claims. I didn't see any copy that I could confirm is peer reviewed. The copy I read is a preprint. The math inclusive in the article is a more common treatment of the cosmological problem and brief descriptive's of other commonly know equations including its mentions of Snyder's Algebra I honestly don't see any equations specific to the papers theory. ! Moderator Note The article itself has far too many claims not supported within the article in terms of any calculations specific to its claims to be considered an article within the rules required for mainstream Physics . Please review the requirements and rules for the speculation forum given in the pinned threads above.

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.

I think I answered this above

I'd argue, no, that's just an arbitrary zoological classification, and we could just as easily classify humans as separate from the animal kingdom, if the axioms which said classification is predicated on is changed entirely. So, in other words, humans are not animals unless someone decides they are for some reason or another. Simply having shared biology with animals doesn't beget such a classification anymore than should a battleship and a kitchen knife be put in the same arbitrary category simply by the virtue of them both being "made of metal". Well "purity" is subjective, and obviously what a specific culture's definition of "purity" is will vary (e.x. what might have been considered "pure" in the Victorian era or in an Islamic country wouldn't necessarily be the same as today in a Western country). Regardless, I think some common sense can be applied. For example, if a person devoted themselves to a lifetime of participation in hook-up culture without any desire to form deeper romantic bonds with a person, various issues could result from this, especially if everyone in a given society did. So we don't want to conflate the ethical issues regarding "consent" with the other issues, ethical and otherwise which could be posited. Generally, is something is consensual, this merely means that we don't believe the law should be involved in regulating it, regardless of what other ethical issues could come up that aren't within the realm of the of the law (and even then, this principle is not absolute. For example, certain types of incestuous relationships are illegal in many states even if "consensual").