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.

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.

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?

This author is a highly cited scientist, and I am referencing his work because he is the only one who has addressed and solved this problem using well-established physical principles, without resorting to speculative assumptions like multiverses, extra dimensions, or dark dimensions. Additionally, the paper I provided is published in *JCAP*, a highly prestigious journal. I feel your arguments against it might be more personal rather than based on objective reasoning. A temperature of 2.7 K is sufficient for the superconducting state to occur, breaking U(1) symmetry and leaving SU(3) as the remaining symmetry in the vacuum. I'm not sure what makes this straightforward argument difficult to grasp. The Meissner effect confirms the breaking of U(1) symmetry and at the same time verifies that SU(3) remains intact, which is the central idea of the paper.

Good question. The table in the paper presents this in detail, incorporating experimental bounds on photon mass from the Particle Data Group https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4783308 Let me rephrase the answer again Your point about the temperature history of the early universe is valid when discussing high-energy epochs where the scale factor dictates temperature evolution. However, the Meissner effect discussed in the paper is not referring to a transition during these early hot stages but rather a low-temperature process occurring at present, well after the universe's thermal history had cooled. The current temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is around 2.7 Kelvin, which indicates that we are dealing with late-time cosmology, not the early universe. The Meissner effect is a well-known phenomenon that occurs at extremely low temperatures, similar to superconductivity in condensed matter physics, where U(1) symmetry breaks spontaneously. This is the context in which the paper applies the Meissner effect—explaining the structure of the vacuum at near-zero Kelvin. As the universe has expanded and cooled over billions of years, reaching this low-temperature state, only the SU(3) symmetry remains intact, while SU(2) and U(1) have broken. This residual SU(3) symmetry characterizes the vacuum energy of late cosmology, including dark energy, which is relevant at today’s extremely low temperatures, rather than the high-energy dynamics of the early universe

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

Your points are valid for high-energy physics under the Standard Model; however, the paper's approach differs significantly. While it is true that quark interactions require the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) gauge groups at high energies, the paper focuses on how these symmetries evolve as the universe cools. Specifically, SU(2) breaks at the electroweak scale, and U(1) is broken by the Meissner effect, leaving SU(3) as the dominant vacuum symmetry near zero Kelvin. This residual SU(3) symmetry forms the foundation for quantizing vacuum energy, which addresses the cosmological constant problem. The Saha equation, applicable to atomic species dropping out of thermal equilibrium, is not relevant in this context. Instead, the paper deals with the stability of vacuum energy at extremely low temperatures, relying on the third law of thermodynamics to maintain the unbroken SU(3) structure. Unlike thermal equilibrium processes described by the Saha equation, which are specific to high-temperature atomic ionization such as hydrogen and deuterium, the approach in the paper concerns quantum symmetry and vacuum stability at near-zero Kelvin. This offers a new perspective on the cosmological constant problem, focusing on vacuum properties rather than classical equilibrium models

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

The Meissner effect is covered in Section II of the paper, and it's important to note that resolving the issues between QFT and GR isn't about the number of equations. Instead, it's about understanding key physical concepts. For example, de Broglie’s introduction of wave-particle duality or Pauli's conceptual explanation of spin didn’t rely on a flood of equations but rather on profound physical insights that shaped modern physics. Similarly, this paper is built on well-established experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and shows that the discrepancy between QFT and GR in calculating vacuum energy density stems from a misunderstanding of these underlying physical principles, not a lack of equations. The goal is to merge QFT and GR through clear conceptual understanding, rather than by adding more speculative postulates or mathematical complexity Read sections II and III that contains the equations that describes these SU(3) atoms. This is the version of the paper that contains all detailed equations https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4783308

The materials that exhibit the Meissner effect, confirmed in superconducting states, are part of the universe governed by the SU(3) × U(1) symmetry. When these materials enter the superconducting state at near absolute zero, they are effectively governed only by SU(3), as the U(1) symmetry is broken. This demonstrates that, in their superconducting state, these materials align with the behavior of the vacuum where only SU(3) symmetry remains unbroken. the authors argued for that in details in their JCAP papers https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012