Leaderboard

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

I don't know who will win. I don't thinks anyone does. But here's a hint about who I would like to win.

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.

The author’s proposal is tied directly to some very solid experimental facts. We all know that the proton has never been observed to decay. That’s crucial. It means that, practically speaking, the proton is a stable structure, which strongly suggests that there’s something fundamental about its existence. Now, pair that with the third law of thermodynamics, which implies that as we approach absolute zero, there should always be some kind of remnant volume that doesn’t just vanish or break down. This tells us that there’s an unbroken, stable structure remaining even at the lowest energy states. Now, what the author is doing is connecting these dots: if there’s a remnant volume, and we know that protons don’t decay and are associated with SU(3) symmetry, then it makes perfect sense to use the volume of the proton as the benchmark for this remnant state. The SU(3) symmetry is unbreakable, it remains stable even when other symmetries like U(1) are broken near zero kelvin. That’s what makes protons so fundamental. The author matches this remnant volume, implied by the third law with the proton volume, defining SU(3) units or vacuum atoms. These SU(3) units can be used to explain why the vacuum energy doesn’t explode to some ridiculous value like QFT tells us it should. Instead, it’s spread out across these stable SU(3) units, bringing the predicted value right down to what we actually observe as dark energy. So, what’s being overlooked here is that this whole approach is anchored in solid principles: the experimental stability of the proton, the third law of thermodynamics, and the fundamental unbreakability of SU(3) symmetry. The author isn’t skipping the foundations—he’s grounding the whole argument in them. It’s about finding a stable, unbroken remnant that matches what we see in nature, and that’s why using the proton volume as the basis makes so much sense. This is what lets the author solve the cosmological constant problem with high precision.

Yep. Plenty of diseases with a genetic basis manifest later in life and might have little or no effect during development. There are many potential reasons, some include being inactive until later in life, requirement of some interactions (either internally or with the environment) to manifest the disorder, functions that can inhibit the disorder during development but not later in life, etc. One might think that organisms are extremely purpose-built and small changes can cause disorder or malfunction. In reality what is considered "normal" is more of a weird mess where a lot of variation exists that under certain conditions works perfectly fine but may break down under others. It is much less deterministic what works and what doesn't as one might imagine.

Another common trick is focusing on distractions such as this. OK. Derive this SU(3) confinement scale number, with these solid physical principles, rather than giving hand-wavy arguments for it. i.e. give a rigorous calculation, rather than “implies” or “suggests” (later on you can provide the evidence that dark energy acts like a superconductor, rather than relying on hints or suggestions)

Repeatedly taking away a debt is the same as repeatedly adding a credit.

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

There's significant construction work being done in our neighborhood. Lots of excavators and roads being dug up, new water drain lines buried, etc. Got to speaking with a member of their crew yesterday. Tall muscular guy, mid-40s. Said he's a former Marine. Spent some time in a motorcycle gang. Did tattoo work, even corporate security before moving into large city funded construction projects. Within a few minutes, he'd shared that racism isn't real and is just a media invented narrative, that Hitler didn't hate "the Jews" and was mostly just mad bc they tried taking his gold away from him, that Hitler even had black Nazis controlling things in Africa so "stop believing all the lies," he shared that "the largest slave owners were actually the native americans," and he even started scrolling through photos and social media posts on his phone to show me and prove all of this was real and relevant as he next moved into commenting that "Nixon moving away from the gold standard is what set all of our problems into motion." It's not simple vaccinating against this. I could've knocked down each of those claims one by one, but he'd just Gish Gallop into 20 more that support his preconceptions. Critical thinking diseases in meme'd minds is an extremely real problem.

Until Genady posted this I had never really thought about the issue. I just followed the rules. One very important thing that has come out of my share dealing example is this. It is no use whatsoever finding a single example of a quantity that can be measured/signed as positive or negative. You need two separate quantities. And these quantities must be connected by a multplicative connection.

No, you're not old. I've seen all those things come and go also. Yet I had a dinner date with an attractive, intelligent, personable 38 year old woman on the weekend. We were silly, laughed and enjoyed each other's company; you would not believe how young this 65 year old man felt.

Ads/CFT correspondence-wikipedia article. .....It also provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories.[2] Much of the usefulness of the duality results from the fact that it is a strong–weak duality: when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting.... I like wikipedia because it's easily accessible to the public domain. I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that. Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123.

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.

You can't orbit anything much faster than its escape velocity at 1G, so no, dropping to the sun requires one to lose energy rather than gain it, which is what you want to get to AC. OK, technically a ship always loses energy as its fuel drains, but I'm talking about the mechanical energy (potential and kinetic) of the payload. So orbit of anything is likely just a waste of time since one cannot exceed some low speed while going in circles, at least not if acceleration is confined to 1G. Suppose the sun could be condensed into a neutron star or black hole. Presuming Joanne doesn't mind a little (a lot) of tidal stress, one could orbit such a thing at super high speed near c but it would take a lot of time to drop into this orbit. And then it gains you nothing getting to AC since all that kinetic energy must be wasted over a long time just to get back to where Earth is orbiting, all the energy being expended not accelerating to AC, but rather just climbing back out of that gravitational well you were in. When back at Earth, no net speed remains. The trip is no shorter.

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...

Meme? You keep using this word. I do not think it means what you think it means. What does this have to do with whether inflation is caused by “printing dollars”? Computer/semiconductor technology, including smartphones, is deflationary, BTW. Which is perhaps one reason contributing to why inflation didn’t spike from ”printing dollars”

Related to this is the problem of determining the molecular formula of a compound from the molecular mass obtained using a high-resolution mass spectrometer.

0% is interesting. There may I suppose be special "stove glass" with an expansion coefficient even lower than Pyrex. Anyway yes, thermal expansion of a part in the middle of a plate, that is hotter than the periphery, will tend to make it bow up or down, or twist, to relieve the strain - i.e. warp. One other thing: glass is a good thermal insulator. So the glass top may also protect whatever is underneath from getting too hot. Anyway, glad you found the comments helpful and good luck with the repair.

If you can solve something with a simple relation, why complicate it by adding more language ? As Newton once said, "Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." It’s like in language: why say "a round object used in games" when you can just say "ball"? The author found a simple, logical relationship that ties together the relevant measurements to address the issue.

Physics is fundamentally an empirical science, its foundation is built on measurements, observations, and experiments. It’s not about math for math’s sake; instead, math is just a language we use to describe physical phenomena. The real core of physics exists in connecting these descriptions to what we can actually measure. In this paper, the author uses the math of spontaneous symmetry breaking and Snyder’s quantum spacetime, not as ends in themselves, but as tools to explain real, observable phenomena. The achievement here is in how the author finds logical connections between these physical measurements, uniting them in a simple, coherent relationship. This isn’t about whether there’s enough math and adding several complications, it’s about whether the math helps us understand and explain the empirical data we observe. The author managed to do exactly that, building a bridge between very solid physical concepts that leads to a clearer understanding of the universe, grounded in what we can actually measure.

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality. Are you agreeing with this definition.

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...

Back to square 1.

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.

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-weakening-major-astrophysics-study-finds-20240404/