MJ kihara

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.

This a perfect example of numerology....it's not related at all to what the author is doing.

What I mean is as the observer on earth is making his plot he will realize as per scale he has chosen the asteroid will be covering same distance as before at a lesser and lesser time as it approaches the sun i.e as it's moving from major axis region towards the region of minor axis....i.e the velocity of the asteroid will be increasing towards the sun. Our wavy line that represent the orbit or the geodesic will increase in frequency and just terminate to a bigger mass;sun(a spot) and if you draw that diagram without the axes it will just be a wavy line increasing in frequency then terminating into a bigger spot(or a point whatever is used to represent the sun)

Same distance/length as units chosen by the observer in his co_ordinate system. Am glad at least I can agree with you on something. Now consider this the asteroid have been interrupted by unexpected object in its orbit that causes it in its next lap to plunge on surface of the sun....how will the wavy curve appear or end? Same distance/length as units chosen by the observer in his co_ordinate system. Am glad at least I can agree with you on something. Now consider this the asteroid have been interrupted by unexpected object in its orbit that causes it in its next lap to plunge on surface of the sun....how will the wavy curve appear or end?

It boosted the understanding. No, since that observer would be in motion relative to both. A velocity discerned from the graph would be of the asteroid relative to the sun. Let's simplify it,the observer is having a telescope, a watch, a pen and a piece of paper,he is doing the plot...the arguments was that the sun position is fixed...it's clear at a given length/distance the asteroid will be using less time(from observer watch) to cover it as it approaches the sun( towards the minor axis).

....In Quantum Field Theory (QFT), as discussed by Steven Weinberg [19], the vacuum energy density arises from summing the zero-point energies of quantum fields, including massless bosons like photons and gravitons. It is calculated as: ρ QFT vac c2 = (2π1ℏ)3 Z 0PPl d3p ℏω p 2 , (17) where PPl = EPl/c is the Planck momentum, and ωp = c|⃗p| for massless particles. Integrating up to the Planck scale yields: ρ QFT vac c2 ≈ E 4 Pl ( ℏc )3 ≈ 1076 GeV4/(ℏc)3 Page 18 of the author article....they are considering all fields,and his cut off is planck scale, meaning that it's taking care of volume smaller than the on considered by SU(3) symmetry unit. Your approach and this one which one is more advantageous?

Of course velocity from viewer standing on earth surface. The asteroid has already factored that by being in that orbit, therefore,the orbit becomes a geodesic. An observer on earth surface will note increase in speed towards minor axis.

No that is not his description; There is a time when the asteroid is on major axis,and as it free fall on the minor axis. The Opening statement is about depiction of geodesic/ orbit. I now see we are talking past each other My intention is that the graph should also fact in the velocity of the asteroid.

It used to be a graph depicting; an orbit....a path. ...a wavy line... a geodesic...it's becoming something else,after the above modifications... of course both sun and asteroid are free falling in space...let the background be fixed.

Parallel to the time axis? It's becoming a confused diagram...just put a zigzag😟

Which constraint?

Assuming mass(sun) is a point or a spot,where do you indicate it in the above diagram ?

Pause a little bit what are you deriving at ? In relation to cosmological constant.