MJ kihara

Oxford dictionary.....The state of being aware of and responsive to one's surroundings.... Get the key words.."aware"...and..."responsive"... We can have as many as possible definitions but I think all of the will narrow down those two terms. I think one part is already solved...."responsive=interaction=wave function collapse"....the other part "aware" is somehow debatable.

It's high time we develop a fundamental theory that considers consciousness as a cornerstone...otherwise machines will out smart us as we are busy defending our status quo...it would be a pity for humans to wait for AI to develop TOE...with time the machine will see the common sense we refuse to recognize..anyway what a wonderful conversation from Deepseek... personally I have so far refrained from chatting with AI bots as I think they are at the stage of harvesting whatever information they can get from humans and developing human mental maps... afterwards I don't what they will become!

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

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

US politics has a lot of weight....'here' people are happy for Trump...for us here,we are used to political tricks of making your political opponents convicts and accusing them of felonies..it's bad politics that I wished it could not spread to the US.

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.

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.

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

It seems people have different perspective on author's article...maybe he needs to defend it more actively....for me and my concepts I see a smoking gun ...it's just a bit in a big puzzle...I wish he could defend it thoroughly so that it can be used for reference.My issue was what made him to use the term SU(3) atom?...then the global vacuum (universal) how is related to SU(3) unit vacuum,because I doubt if it could be 100% stable,since in such a case, it can't have any connections to the global vacuum...(bringing the issue of multiverse)...that's why I was bringing the issue of holography, vacuum leakages and quantum noise. Finding solutions to fundamental problem is a struggle.....let the struggle continue.

I think you are adding wrong facts on author's concept....a photon exist but it's massless ....your using proton mass which is not in the arguments....it's a volume derived from SU(3) symmetry that is directly related to proton mass.....people here talk about mass...and all they can tell you about it is, Higgs field, dark matter has mass but not through Higgs field...it's just sad 😢 that people can't tolerate challenging ideas that don't conform to their thinking...the only option is to apply mud on others concepts.

Ur a great liguist....but on cosmological constant you need to work hard to convince someone otherwise...if you could arrange the ideas like on that video that MigL posted or like the author of the article(OP) i think I could have shut up long time ago. Even without breaking U(1) symmetry, the SU(3) symmetry of strong force would remain stable when considering a stable volume...since talking of photon volume is not conceivable.

I think there is a lot of misunderstanding going around here...a proton is a proton because the fields inside it( quark fields) behave in a certain way( the way those quark combine)...by restricting those fields you get a proton otherwise we could have one proton filling the whole universe.when we measure a proton,I assume sum of this 'restricted'fields within that 'volume' give a result consistent with a proton. Do you mean a proton is just a mathematical object? You are getting me wrong,am talking about the formula used by the author to derive zero point energy..what's wrong with that formula? and yet it's clear they are talking of summing up all available quantum including for gravitons.

How is this related to the vacuum inside a proton? Putting cut off at planck scale doesn't it help?

What would make you conclude that cosmological constant problem has been solved in a precise way?

From the author article. I don't see why some people are against the article,am not convinced otherwise...what we need is more additions such as holographic principle and issue concerning vacuum leakages.