Leaderboard

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'

The more physics one studies the more interconnected one realizes different theories get +1

..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.

For while now, I've been slowly trying to learn Finnish, since it was the natural tongue of all my grandparents. However this isn't going to be strictly about that but abut learning languages in general. They often start by teaching you a few simple phrases, that may come in useful, (hello, my name is... etc.) One of those phrases is often along the lines of "Do you speak English(or whatever language you normally speak)? For example, in Finnish, this would be "Puhetko* englanitia?" After some thought, I realized that there is no real reason you need to know how to say this. If you were in Finland and wanted to ask someone if they spoke English, you could just ask in English. If they do, they will understand you, and answer in English, and if they don't, they'll say something like "Ei"( no), or "en ymmärrä"( I don't understand), or give you some other indication that they don't. Either way, you've got your answer. Now, I can see where it would appear more polite to ask in Finnish( or in whatever the language is where you are), but in a purely logical sense. it is not strictly necessary. And of course, the one thing you definitely shouldn't do if you get the second response is to ask the question again, but LOUDER.... AND....SLOWER. *or "puhutteko" if you being formal or addressing more than one person.

What I do remember is the story of the teacher saying that, while two negatives make a positive, two positives still make a positive. To which a voice at the back of the class remarked: "Yeah. Right".

Your POV always seems like a parody to me, like you're just trolling to get people to comment on ridiculous statements. "I hate scientists who make weapons, but appreciate the ones who protect Americans!" Your reality has lots of noise and very, very little signal.

Sure but I would prefer to take the time to find half decent literature examples in this case. A large part of it is different methodologies to handle the nonrenormalization of the findings of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model mentioned here. This is a huge part of the reason for all the SU(3) lattice gauge articles you guys are finding. This all is also part of BCS theory mentioned in below link https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu–Jona-Lasinio_model But in this case I'm only loosely familiar with some of the research as it's not one of my specialty areas in so far over the years I've read numerous articles on the topic and some of the research but don't particularly follow it closely or rather not as much as I do in early universe processes as I'm a Cosmologist with formal training in Cosmology and particle physics. One detail to recognize is that a gauge theory such as SU(3) isn't necessarily identical in every treatment that's one of the things recognize when it comes to gauge theories. A good example is the distinctions between QM and QFT they both use SU(3) but the operators themselves in each case are different. So it's essential to look specifically how any given theory applies a given gauge group.

An article published yesterday by The New Republic (TNR) discusses at some length the malign influence of so called ‘polls’ released by right leaning US firms in the last few weeks, which in a number of cases appear to be openly partisan attempts to shift the aggregate polls in favour of Trump, and to create a false illusion of momentum trending in favour of MAGA https://newrepublic.com/article/187425/gop-polls-rigging-averages-trump What is happening is that the psephological marketplace is being flooded with new polls from right-wing fly-by-night operators, and this data is then being included into national polling averages by such aggregators as FiveThirtyEight and The New York Times - among others. The latter adamantly deny that GOP polls are seriously harming their averages and forecasts - but a better question would be - Why is this garbage being included by aggregators in the first place ? The aggregators say that they apply negative weightings to polls which are thought to be systematically biased to ensure they have less influence than high-quality polls with better standards of empirical accuracy and more methodological transparency. Critics are sceptical about this - and with reason.They point out that while many of the distortions introduced into the averages by these skewed MAGA leaning polls may be statistically insignificant - e.g. a ‘lead’ of 0.4% - they are being actively exploited for psychological propaganda effect by social media entities such as X/Twitter who will claim that Trump is “Winning the state”, and then even more irresponsibly assign electoral college votes based on such narrow leads to ramp up partisan claims that ’Trump is now winning’ - not just even leading, but winning the election - when the underlying data says nothing of the sort. Earlier today I read a report on Sky News whose headline uncritically claimed that “Trump is now the bookies favourite” https://news.sky.com/story/us-election-donald-trump-kamala-harris-democrat-republican-polls-skynews-live-latest-13209921 The reality (as previously noted) is that these claims derive entirely from online betting markets like Betfair and Polymarket which are being heavily manipulated by conservative MAGA investors who are sinking up to $14 million dollars a time into these forums - precisely to generate headlines of this sort.

ChatGPT, is that you?

I won't accept such cookies normally, but I pasted the link in an incognito window and it let me in without challenge. It seems to be a Newtonian calculator and yields 1.18c if I put in 10k hours at 1G Really, there are very good calculators for relativistic space travel. One of the best: https://gregsspacecalculations.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html That one presumes fixed proper acceleration, not coordinate acceleration like a Newtonian calculator would use.

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.

That's coordinate acceleration, and 1G of that for almost a year would kill poor Joanne, and it could not continue at all for a full year. I do realize the OP did not specify explicitly, but 'comfortable' was used, so my figure is based on a comfortable 1G proper acceleration, and that takes almost 2.7 years (ship time) to get to that speed and around 6.8 years Earth time. Fixed proper acceleration can in principle be kept up indefinitely. Oh, and your link is behind a paywall, or at least a subscribe wall. I could not view it.

1g acceleration gets you to 0.99c in a little less than a year (earth frame) https://rechneronline.de/g-acceleration/

Switch that around the the coupling strength gets stronger at low temperatures due to asymptotic freedom weakest as temp increases. See second graph coupling strength on Y axis conversion from GeV to Kelvin 11606 Kelvin per eV for x axis The article has zero mathematics for SU(3) so it's claims on that regard That really amounts to trying to build a workable model for the Author as none of those mathematics are inclusive.

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..

I’m afraid that makes little sense…spacetime (however many dimensions you give it) is either geodesically incomplete, or it isn’t. This is not an observer-dependent notion. Extra macroscopic dimensions would be easily noticeable in the effects their existence has on the laws of physics. For example, in a (4+1)D universe, radiation fields would fall off with distance according to an inverse cube law, rather than an inverse square law. This is evidently not what we see in the real world. This isn’t what happens in GR, so what you are attempting to formulate is a modified law of gravity. That is good and well, but the major problem is of course that such a modified theory must also correctly model all other gravitational scenarios, not just gravitational collapse. This is where all known modified gravity theories (and there are many at this point) ultimately fail - some do very well in specific scenarios, but fail miserably in other situations. Right now only GR provides the best fit for the largest set of available data. This is actually a pop-sci misconception - collapse processes don’t lead to “infinitely dense point”. But that aside, when it comes to avoiding singularities, this is really not so hard to do; for example, simply allowing torsion on your spacetime does the trick (the resulting theory is called Einstein-Cartan gravity). The trouble with all those modifications is that they have other consequences too; for example, the above model leads to extra terms in the Dirac equation, making it non-linear, and there’s currently no observational evidence of any deviations from the standard form of the equation. Thus - proposing models that fix specific issues is quite easy, but making these models also agree with all other available data, that’s hard.

I'm afraid that you cannot get to that speed (relative to Earth) in only half the distance to your destination (at least not at 1G). Perhaps a target further away like Tau Ceti, which is almost exactly how far you'd get if you got to .99c and immediately started slowing. You'd be back home in 27 years 2.3 months. To Alpha Centauri and back you'd be gone only 12 Earth years, but would only reach 0.95c Tell Joanne to skip most of the luggage and have laundry facilities onboard.

Here are some equations that may help Where: t =Earth time T= ship time d= distance v = velocity a= acceleration For brevity: ch = hyperbolic cosine sh = hyperbolic sine th = hyperbolic tangent t=(c/a) sh(aT/c) = sqrt[(d/c)2 + 2d/a d=(c2/a) [ch(aT/c)-1] = (c2/a) (sqrt[1+(at/c)2]-1) v= c th(aT/c) = at/sqrt[1+(at/c)2] T= (c/a) sh-1(at/c) = (c/a) ch-1[ad/c2 +1]

While the parts with constant relative speed require just algebra, the acceleration and deceleration are more involved. E.g.,

It's a half truth. Inflation from quantitative easing and "printing money" could lead to inflationary effects. It's just not the root cause of the inflation most people are bitching and moaning about right now. That was due to supply chain shocks globally at the same time that families received rapid unexpected injections of cash to prevent collapse of the system. This would potentially help with inflation since it would remove liquidity from the system (i.e. poor people stop spending money and the reduction in spending would lead to lowering of costs vendors and manufacturers charge), but a far superior weapon is increasing interest rates since it's not regressive and has the benefit of impacting everyone all at once.

.....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.

How I felt like reacting when I found out most of my new coworkers are Trump supporters... Because yes, they are Orcs.

Actually, he is. Here is how: Firstly, he is i.e., he is calculating the ratio, (universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume). Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating, (energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume). Or, equivalently, (energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume). So, he is in fact

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.)

I think I answered this above

After reading the paper several times to comprehend it, it is evident that the paper stands on a solid foundation of well-established principles, including symmetry breaking and the experimentally verified Meissner effect. The SU(3) gauge symmetry that dominates the vacuum at near-zero Kelvin is a direct result of these mechanisms. It is clear that the approach is not speculative but is instead rooted in robust theoretical and experimental frameworks that are well-documented in physics. Your criticism does not seem to fully engage with the underlying principles being applied, which are both logically consistent and empirically supported. Instead of vague insinuations about a lack of proof, it would be more constructive to acknowledge the established physics that forms the backbone of this work and engage with it in a detailed and substantive manner. The principles used here are not speculative or questionable; they are grounded in experimentally verified phenomena that have direct relevance to the questions at hand

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.

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.

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.

No true Scotsman fallacy

That is very interesting hint, can you elaborate more ?

Ah, that's an interesting point you've brought up! The author citing papers connected to the holographic principle and mentioning in the abstract that this solution might shed light on the origin of gauge/gravity dualities adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. You see, the holographic principle is this fascinating idea that suggests all the information contained in a volume of space can be represented as a theory on the boundary of that space, kind of like how a hologram works. It's a deep concept that bridges quantum mechanics and gravity. The author might be aiming to provide insights into how gauge theories (SU(3)) relate to gravitational theories through cosmological constant lens. This ties into the gauge/gravity duality, which is a powerful concept in theoretical physics suggesting that certain gauge theories are equivalent to gravity theories in higher dimensions. If the author's approach can highlight the origin of these dualities, it could be a significant step toward understanding how different forces in the universe are connected at a fundamental level. It might even offer clues about how spacetime and gravity emerge from more basic quantum processes. So, not only is the paper addressing the cosmological constant problem by proposing that dark energy behaves like a superconductor state of matter, but it's also potentially shedding light on deep connections between quantum field theories and gravity. That's pretty exciting stuff! It's always amazing to see how ideas from different areas of physics can converge, offering new perspectives and solutions to longstanding problems. As Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Exploring these new connections might be just what's needed to push our understanding forward.

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

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

Dear MigL, Thank you for your comment and for engaging with the paper. I'd like to address your concerns and clarify the robustness of the arguments presented. The paper posits that U(1) symmetry is broken at present-day temperatures due to the Meissner effect—an experimentally verified phenomenon in superconductivity where magnetic fields are expelled, indicating the spontaneous breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry without violating charge conservation, as per Noether's theorem. Consequently, SU(3) emerges as the residual unbroken symmetry at near-zero Kelvin, effectively dominating the vacuum structure of the universe. Although the proton is a composite particle, it is the smallest stable unit where SU(3) interactions are fully realized due to the confinement property of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). By dividing the universe's total volume by the volume of a proton, the author estimates the number of these SU(3) units or "atoms" filling the cosmos, providing a quantitative link between the microscopic properties of SU(3) symmetry and the macroscopic vacuum energy density observed in cosmology. This approach is grounded in well-established principles of symmetry breaking, quantum field theory, and thermodynamics—not mere numerology. The third law of thermodynamics supports the stability and uniformity of the SU(3) vacuum structure as temperature approaches absolute zero. Extending the Meissner effect to cosmology, the paper suggests that U(1) symmetry breaking leads to a form of cosmic superconductivity, potentially decoupling dark energy from electromagnetic fields—consistent with observations. By considering SU(3) as the dominant residual symmetry operating within proton-sized volumes, the paper offers a physically motivated solution to the cosmological constant problem. Why is it necessary to assume a new particle when the problem can be solved using SU(3) symmetry? Why introduce additional complexities when a simpler solution might suffice?

Dear Mordred, thank you for your this question. I'd be happy to clarify how the Meissner effect relates to the cosmological constant and why we might not see its evidence in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which involves processes like Compton scattering. Firstly, it's important to consider the timeline of the universe: the CMB was emitted approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang during the recombination era when electrons and protons combined to form hydrogen, allowing photons to travel freely, whereas the cosmological constant (dark energy) became dominant much later, roughly 7 billion years after the Big Bang, leading to the accelerated expansion of the universe we observe today. The Meissner effect is a phenomenon observed in superconductors at extremely low temperatures, where magnetic fields are expelled due to the spontaneous breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry; in the context of the paper, this effect is extended to cosmology by proposing that a similar symmetry-breaking mechanism occurs in the vacuum at very low temperatures, contributing to the cosmological constant. We do not see evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB because the effect becomes relevant long after the CMB was emitted—the processes governing the CMB, such as Compton scattering and recombination events, and those related to the cosmological Meissner effect occur at different times and involve different physics. The Meissner effect's influence on the vacuum is uniform at cosmic scales, meaning it doesn't introduce anisotropies or fluctuations that would leave an imprint on the CMB's temperature or polarization patterns. Additionally, the energy scales relevant to the Meissner effect are vastly different from those at recombination; the CMB photons are relics from a hot, dense universe, while the Meissner effect operates under conditions of extremely low energy and temperature in the late universe. In essence, we do not see evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB because it influences the accelerated expansion of the universe rather than the microwave background radiation itself, and its relevance emerges in the universe's low-temperature state much later than the era of CMB formation. I hope this clarifies your question.

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

Dividing the total vacuum energy density by the number of SU(3) "atoms" in the universe is a natural step because it incorporates the new information about the finite number of these units in the vacuum structure. This division adjusts the energy calculation to reflect the energy density per unit volume, which aligns with the observed low energy density of the vacuum. By recognizing that the vacuum is composed of a finite number of discrete SU(3) units rather than being a continuous one entity.

The paper identifies the vacuum energy density per unit volume for each atom, without altering the physical units, as the number of atoms is ultimately a dimensionless quantity. SU(3) has been experimentally confirmed to be effective only within the proton's size. What further experimental evidence would be needed beyond this?

Alright, I see where you’re comin' from, but I think you’re missin' the core point of what’s bein' discussed. Nobody’s sayin' 10^123 is the QFT vacuum energy density. We all know QFT gives that absurdly high estimate when you cut off at the Planck scale. The point isn’t to defend that number, but to explain why the observed vacuum energy is so much lower than what QFT predicts. The paper talkin' about isn’t tryin' to justify the QFT number—it’s actually addressing the exact issue you're pointing out: why the vacuum energy is so low compared to that 10^123 overcount from QFT. So the whole goal is to fix the very problem you’re talkin' about, not reinforce it.

The idea presented in this paper brings us back to solid ground after more than 50 years of speculative theories filled with unclear assumptions that lack physical meaning or measurable evidence, such as the multiverse/extra dimensions. It’s like returning to the simplicity of nature’s truths. By proposing dark energy as a superconductor state of matter, the author solidifies an argument that has been hinted at in several prior works. For example, papers like the one in Phys. Rev. D ([10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042](https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042)) and the JCAP study ([DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012)) have already explored the idea of dark energy behaving like a superconductor. Similarly, the works found on arXiv ([arXiv:1712.10311](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.10311)) and in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D ([DOI: 10.1142/S0218271807011292](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271807011292)) discuss this direction, suggesting that superconductivity might be a key to understanding dark energy. What makes this paper interesting is its reliance on symmetry, which is the most powerful tools in physics. By applying symmetry breaking, particularly U(1) breaking while leaving SU(3) in an unbreakable state, the paper provides a clear, measurable framework that cuts through speculative ideas like the multiverse and focuses on well-established, testable physics. This makes the argument more robust and grounded, offering a meaningful explanation of dark energy that fits within the broader context of known physical laws.

I explored further and found experimental work on the possibility of detection of dark energy within superconductors, such as: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2009/931920 And this one in PRL https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151802 It seems that the idea is also rooted in these recent experiments. Very interesting!

It is commendable that you recognize the legitimacy of the concept, for that is indeed the cornerstone of the paper. The derivation of SU(3) vacuum atoms based on the proposed framework is a logical consequence, and we must remember that mathematics, while indispensable, is merely the language we use to articulate these ideas, what truly matters is the underlying concept. Upon closer inspection of the paper, it becomes clear that the author employs two composite electrons as a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry, which is entirely consistent with spontaneous symmetry breaking as it is applied in condensed matter physics. This approach is far from unconventional; it aligns with established methods, merely adapted to address a novel issue. While you may have sought a more concrete definition of the SU(3) atoms, considering the effective range of the nuclear force is, in this context, both reasonable and appropriate. To describe the paper as “unusable” strikes me as an overstatement, given that the physics it presents is sound and the theoretical foundation well established. Certainly, there is always room for further development, particularly in the mathematical details, where i find that he is arguing that these su(3) vacuum atoms implies a quantum nature of the spacetime. It seems there might be some misunderstanding regarding the author's use of terms and concepts. While I'm not defending the paper, I can appreciate the logical framework it presents. The term "vacuum atom" is employed as a conceptual tool to describe the quantization of space at the scale of SU(3) symmetry. The number of these su(3) vacuum atoms is derived from dividing universe volume by proton volume. This approach isn't merely about scaling the universe using SU(3); it's about relating these symmetries to the very structure of the vacuum because su(3) remains unbreakable. Additionally, the paper suggests that the expansion of the universe can be understood through the Meissner effect, that is similar to the expulsion of magnetic fields in superconductors. This idea was first published by the same author in JCAP as he explained in the introduction of the paper [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012 ]. By drawing parallels between cosmic expansion and the Meissner effect, the author offers a novel perspective that could open new avenues for research, potentially using condensed matter techniques to investigate cosmological phenomena. In essence, the paper lays down a logical foundation based on established physics principles, offering fresh insights into complex cosmological issues.

You've got the gist of what the author's getting at, but let me clarify a bit. The author is still using the Planck scale as the cutoff in the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, that's standard in quantum field theory. But here's where things get interesting: instead of accepting that enormous vacuum energy density we get from QFT with this cutoff (you know, the one that's off by about 123 orders of magnitude from what we observe), the author proposes a new way to look at it. He suggests that the vacuum energy isn't just uniformly spread out but is effectively distributed over a huge number of "SU(3) vacuum atoms." Now, these aren't atoms like you find on the periodic table. They're units associated with the unbroken SU(3) symmetry of the strong nuclear force. To figure out how many of these SU(3) atoms there are, he divides the total volume of the universe by the volume of a proton, since protons are governed by SU(3) symmetry. By thinking of the vacuum energy as spread out over all these SU(3) atoms, the effective vacuum energy density comes way down. This redistribution brings the theoretical prediction precisely equal to the observed value, tackling that massive discrepancy without changing the Planck scale cutoff itself. Now, you mentioned you still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale, and that's a reasonable concern. The author is basing this scale on the properties of the strong nuclear force and the unbroken SU(3) symmetry, arguing that this scale might be more relevant for vacuum energy considerations. It's a departure from the usual methods, sure, but it offers a fresh perspective on the cosmological constant problem that might be worth exploring further. In essence, the author isn't throwing out the Planck scale but is reinterpreting how the vacuum energy calculated with it can be reconciled with what we actually observe, by considering the structure of the vacuum at the scale of the strong force. It's an interesting idea that challenges us to think differently about a long-standing problem.

Let's try to clear up some of the confusion here. First off, the SU(3) gauge symmetry you're talking about is related to the strong nuclear force—the interactions between quarks inside protons and neutrons. This symmetry remains unbroken, even at temperatures close to absolute zero. The key point is that the strong force operates at energy scales much higher than what we deal with in thermal physics at low temperatures. Now, you're asking how we can maintain temperatures below 1 Kelvin and still have the SU(3) momentum terms untouched. The thing is, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, but the strong interactions governed by SU(3) are internal to nucleons (protons and neutrons) and aren't significantly affected by such low external temperatures. The quarks inside protons and neutrons are bound together so tightly that the thermal energy at 1 Kelvin is negligible in comparison. For example, consider superconductors, which operate at very low temperatures. Even in materials cooled to fractions of a Kelvin, the protons and neutrons in their nuclei are still there, doing their thing, and the SU(3) symmetry is still at play. The electrons become superconducting, but the nucleons remain unaffected in terms of their strong interactions. Liquid helium is another good example. When helium is cooled below 2.17 Kelvin, it becomes a superfluid with fascinating quantum properties. Yet, despite this extreme cooling, the protons and neutrons in helium atoms continue to interact via the strong force as they always do. The SU(3) symmetry doesn't disappear or change because of the low temperature. Think of it this way: it’s like trying to alter the course of a speeding bullet by blowing on it. No matter how hard you blow, the bullet doesn’t notice. Similarly, the strong force doesn’t “feel” the low-temperature environment because its energy scale is so much higher. So, maintaining a system at less than 1 Kelvin doesn't interfere with SU(3) momentum terms because those interactions are internal and at much higher energy scales than thermal energies. The strong force is about a million times stronger than electromagnetic interactions, and thermal fluctuations at such low temperatures are too feeble to impact it. Regarding your concern about the number of SU(3) "vacuum atoms" exceeding the particle count in the observable universe: these "vacuum atoms" are a conceptual tool used to model the vacuum energy density. Comparing their number directly to the number of CMB photons isn't quite the right approach. You compare two different things! The model proposes that the vacuum can be thought of as being composed of these SU(3) vacuum units, and by doing so, it attempts to address the cosmological constant problem. By considering the vacuum at the scale of the strong force, the model aims to redistribute the vacuum energy in a way that makes sense with observations. Photons counts belong to different kind of force that already broken by Meissner effect. When you mention the critical density equating to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter at 2.73 Kelvin, you're talking about the average density of normal matter in the universe. The cosmological constant problem is about vacuum energy, which is a different aspect altogether. So, the model doesn't conflict with the observed matter density or the properties of the cosmic microwave background. It's offering a new way to think about how vacuum energy arises from fundamental symmetries that remain unbroken, like SU(3), and how this could solve a long-standing puzzle in physics. Hope that helps clear things up!

Harvesting animals unlawfully is POACHING. Harvesting animals IAW game regulations is NOT poaching. If scientists determine that so many animals must be harvested for the good of the species or the environment, then so be it. I am a deer and dove hunter myself. I strictly follow the game laws. If the animal in question was lawfully taken, I don't care what legitimate business the pelt is involved in. I would mount a standing full-body bull giraffe in my private hunting lodge if I were to have the wherewithal to lawfully take one in an African safari perhaps if it were a rogue bull putting local villagers in danger. Naturally, I would want the airplane and the safari vehicles for my safari adventure to be powered by renewables to be in good conscience. Also, if an animal or two must be killed for conservation efforts, I believe in giving law-abiding sport hunters first crack at it. Hunters generate revenues through game tags, ammunition sales and licensing fees that go toward wildlife management. Having only government officials to cull herds creates an unnecessary taxpayer burden.

Hunters generate revenues for game wardens, state biologists and conservation officers and such to operate in the United States of America through game licensing and tag fees. Explosives would create a fire hazard in forests. Well-placed bullets from proper centerfire rifles are much more humane than poisons. Hunting bear and other fur-bearing animals with hounds is a romantic adventure. Hunters have to pay states for the privilege to enjoy such romantic pursuits. The cry of speaking Walker treeing hounds in the woods below a treed bear or cougar is a joy to hear echoing through the trees. All of that helicopter stuff would just be a tax-payer burden. All of that burnt helicopter fossil fuel would not be Mother Earth friendly unless the flying machines were to otherwise run on biofuels from corn or green hydrogen, perhaps. The explosives would also destroy valuable trees, for you tree-huggers! The nose of a trained Walker treeing hound (moreover, a pack of them) is quite keen and efficient. This natural sniffer can home in on a bear or a big cat like a heat-seeking missile. Otherwise, these animals would be as evasive as Bigfoot to try to track.

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.