Albert2024

It is not numerology. The division by 10^123 in Quantum Field Theory reflects a physical principle based on the experimental Meissner effect, which shows that the vacuum is composed of 10^123 SU(3) units rather than being a single entity. This adjustment to the QCD Lagrangian is intended to incorporate the granular structure of the vacuum into QFT, aligning with observed vacuum energy densities. This approach is grounded in experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and aims to provide a more accurate model if it leads to predictions consistent with experimental data. Therefore, it represents a legitimate theoretical adjustment rather than arbitrary numerology.

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?

The article resolves the misunderstanding about the cosmological constant problem by offering a new perspective that considers the vacuum as composed of a finite number of SU(3) units, evidenced by the well-established size of the proton and. By using the proton's size as a fundamental unit, the author estimates the number of SU(3) units filling the universe, reconciling the large vacuum energy predicted by quantum field theory with the small cosmological constant observed in cosmology. This approach doesn't introduce new hypothetical entities but builds upon existing experimental evidence.

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.

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.

Thank you for your feedback! I'm glad you found the paper intriguing. The possibility that massless gluons could play a role in explaining dark energy is indeed a key point in the author's approach. In the context of the author's theory, if the vacuum were composed of just one main unit, we would indeed divide the total energy by the total volume of the universe to calculate the vacuum energy density. However, since the vacuum is theorized to consist of around 10^123 discrete SU(3) units (or "atoms"), we must take this number into account when calculating the correct density. This division by the number of units refines the calculation, allowing us to distribute the vacuum energy across these individual, stable components, resulting in the observed low value of the cosmological constant. In statistical physics, similar ideas occur when we deal with discrete systems, such as gas particles in a container. For example, in the **ideal gas law**, PV = Nk_B T , the total energy is divided by the number of gas particles N to calculate properties like pressure or temperature, rather than just considering the volume. The behavior of each particle contributes to the overall system properties. Another example is in **Boltzmann statistics**, where the probability of a system being in a certain state is calculated by dividing the total energy across the number of microstates available. The partition function sums over these microstates, distributing the total energy accordingly, just as in the theory where the vacuum energy is distributed over a large number of discrete SU(3) units. These examples from statistical physics parallel the author's approach by illustrating how dividing by the number of fundamental units or particles helps compute accurate densities and properties for large-scale systems, providing a more granular and precise understanding of the system's energy distribution.

Ok

Steven Weinberg, in his seminal work on the cosmological constant problem, emphasized that the discrepancy arises fundamentally at the **zero level**—a profound mismatch between quantum field theory predictions and cosmological observations. Your critique seems to overlook this crucial aspect. The author focuses on addressing this zero-level discrepancy by applying the Meissner effect and the unbroken **SU(3)** symmetry at near-zero Kelvin temperatures. The paper offers a physically grounded solution rooted in experimentally verified phenomena like the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics. Introducing additional scalar, vector, or spinor field relations, while relevant in broader gauge theories, is not essential for resolving the specific zero-level issue that Weinberg discussed. I encourage you to read Weinberg's original paper to gain a deeper understanding of why the cosmological constant problem fundamentally arises from zero-level discrepancies. This context may clarify why the author's approach is both valid and significant in addressing the cosmological constant problem without unnecessary complexities. I understand your perspective, but it’s important to distinguish between mathematical constructs and physical reality. While dimensions in mathematics can indeed be treated as degrees of freedom or independent variables, physics demands that our theories not only be mathematically consistent but also empirically verifiable. Introducing extra dimensions or proposing the existence of 10^{500} universes without experimental evidence leads us into speculative territory that challenges the foundational principles of science—testability and falsifiability. As Wolfgang Pauli famously remarked, theories that are not testable are “not even wrong.” Embracing such ideas risks diverting physics from its empirical roots and transforming it into a field of unfounded speculation. The implications of accepting untestable theories are significant. Proposing an enormous number of universes not only lacks empirical support but also complicates our understanding of the cosmos without providing testable predictions. This shifts physics away from its core mission of describing and explaining the natural world based on evidence. The Standard Model of particle physics, built upon solid experimental results, does not require extra dimensions to explain fundamental particles and their interactions. By focusing on well-established, experimentally verified phenomena—such as the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics—we ensure that theories remain connected to observable reality. These principles provide tangible mechanisms that can be tested and observed, reinforcing the integrity of physics as an empirical science.

I defend the paper for reasons beyond the personal assumption you're making, which is not only irrelevant but also far from being objective. If you're going to make assumptions, consider the possibility that I, like many others, am frustrated with speculative theories in physics—such as multiverses, extra dimensions in 10, 11, or 12 dimensions—that divert physics from its core experimental foundation. This paper stands out because it offers a solution grounded in simple, experimentally verified principles, such as the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics. It’s a refreshing departure from speculative frameworks, bringing the focus back to well-established, testable physics.

Did you even read the author's work? Your comment is completely off-base and irrelevant to the core of the theory being discussed. The focus here is on **SU(3)** symmetry, not U(1), which has already been broken in this framework. You're addressing computations for a symmetry that doesn't apply in this context, which shows a lack of understanding of the author's argument. Instead of engaging with the actual substance of the theory—how SU(3) symmetry near zero Kelvin explains the cosmological constant—you’re fixated on something that has no relevance to the solution being proposed.

The problem with your comment exists in a misunderstanding of the author's approach. The Meissner effect implies that U(1) symmetry has already been broken in the context of this theory. The author's work focuses on the residual unbroken **SU(3)** symmetry near zero Kelvin, where it governs the structure of the vacuum. Your focus on computations related to U(1) is misplaced and irrelevant to the author's solution, which is rooted in how SU(3) symmetry plays a central role in explaining the cosmological constant. By misapplying the framework to a symmetry that is no longer active in this context, you're ignoring the key aspect of the theory that addresses vacuum energy and its stability, rendering your critique irrelvant.

How this comment is even relevant to the discussion here ?!

The author explains in his paper that as the ratio increases—meaning the number of SU(3) "atoms" grows—the calculation of the vacuum energy density requires dividing by this larger number of atoms to determine the correct vacuum energy density. Therefore, as the number of su(3) atoms increases, the overall vacuum energy density decreases.

The author presents two possibilities in his paper. 1. Proton Size Expands with the Universe: If the proton's size expands at the same rate as the universe, the cosmological constant would remain constant regardless of cosmic expansion. The proton's size would increase by very small value comparable to its actual size based on the Hubble parameter rate. 2. Proton Size Remains Constant: If the proton's size remains constant while the universe continues to expand, then the cosmological constant would decrease over time. Regarding the second possibility, it may resonate with recent announcements suggesting that the dark energy density is decreasing over time. (DESI) collaboration indicates that dark energy density could be decreasing over time. They announced that few month ago as far as I remember.