JosephDavid

QFT hands us this massive number for vacuum energy density, huge, way too big. But the author’s got a neat idea: maybe that big number isn’t all piled up in one place. Instead, based on **solid physical reasons**, he’s saying it’s **spread out over \(10^{123}\) tiny SU(3) atoms** filling the whole universe. Now, when you spread that QFT energy over all these little SU(3) “atoms,” suddenly you end up with a vacuum energy density that actually fits what we observe. So, the **vacuum energy density we’re seeing isn’t just energy per cubic meter**; it’s **energy per cubic meter per SU(3) atom**. And that, my friend, is what quantum spacetime is all about here. We’re not looking at one big, smooth field of energy. We’re looking at energy carefully spread out, divided across countless little units. It’s this distribution that makes everything line up with what we measure, simple, logical, and right there in front of us.

Are you not getting it yet? Look, when we’re talking about **vacuum energy density**, we’re not just dealing with energy per cubic meter. Nope, it’s **energy per cubic meter per SU(3) vacuum atom. Think of it this way: imagine you’ve got a giant pizza meant to feed an entire town. Now, instead of handing the whole thing to one person (which would be ridiculous), you slice it up and spread it out to everyone in town, giving each person a manageable slice. That’s what’s going on here with vacuum energy. In this analogy, the enormous vacuum energy from QFT is like that pizza. But instead of loading it all into one place, it’s **spread across \(10^{123}\) proton-sized SU(3) vacuum atoms** scattered throughout the universe. Each atom holds just a fraction of the energy—just like each person gets a slice of pizza. So, what we’re actually observing is the **energy per cubic meter per atom**. This breakdown per atom is what makes the observed vacuum energy density match what we see in the real universe. It’s not just energy per cubic meter, it's distributed per atom, and that’s what keeps everything nice and balanced. Yes, because we need something stable and measurable to define the volume that confines gluons. The neutron could work, but it decays into a proton. So, the proton's volume is more reliable as the one that truly confines massless gluons, since the proton doesn’t decay through any channels in the Standard Model.

The volume of the proton is the volume that confines gluons, the massless particles that represent the unbreakable su(3) symmetry.

It is correct, as it explains the lowest energy density we have ever measured, the vacuum energy density, based on observations of the universe's expansion.

The number of these SU(3) vacuum atoms remains constant, which explains the cosmological constant.

Photons are completely decoupled from gluons and, fundamentally, have no interaction with dark energy either.

If you’re after a massless, stable backdrop for the universe, gluon condensation is the way to go. It’s like an invisible field, filling space without adding weight, simple, clean, and seamless. Glueballs, by contrast, are little balls of pure glue, but they carry mass due to their binding energy. So, if you’re aiming for a truly massless vacuum structure, gluon condensation is the better choice. I looked into the author’s another paper on the cosmological constant and noticed he describes dark energy as a kind of Bose-Einstein distribution. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4598396

let’s first understand gluons. These guys are massless. So here’s the deal. Normally, gluons keep quarks bound in particles like protons and neutrons, bouncing back and forth like little springs between quarks. But unlike other force carriers, like photons, gluons are social. They don’t just interact with quarks; they’re also interested in each other! It’s like you’re at a party, and these gluons are so friendly, they start dancing together. This dance gives us something wild called a **gluon condensate**—a whole sea of these massless gluons hanging out in empty space. And here’s another trick: if you get a bunch of gluons together, they can clump up into something we call a **glueball**. Yeah, that’s right—no quarks, just a wad of pure glue. Imagine a baseball made entirely out of sticky tape with nothing in the middle. That’s glueball, just pure gluon stickiness bundled up. The author here cites some work on glueballs, Now here’s where it gets interesting: these gluons, despite doing all this work, don’t add any mass to the universe. It’s like having an invisible scaffold stretching across the cosmos. This unbreakable SU(3) symmetry is always there, holding everything in place without actually weighing anything down. The author’s point here is that SU(3) doesn’t just hold quarks together; it stretches across the universe, massless but unbreakable, like an invisible safety net. So, next time you’re worried about putting on a few pounds, just remember the gluons. They’re out there, holding the universe together, doing all this hard work, without gaining a gram. Makes you appreciate the whole massless, invisible glue keeping the cosmos in shape, doesn’t it?

Gluons are massless.

In fact the author indicated that in the paper, when he introduced the lagrangian of su(3) field divided by these number of units.

The author used the proton volume to define the unit of space that the massless gluon field may occupy at each point in the spacetime fabric of the universe.

thanks for pointing that out! It really helps me clarify why the author chose the title **"Unbreakable SU(3) Vacuum Atoms"** instead of just saying "protons." You see, in the whimsical world of quantum chromodynamics (QCD), protons aren't just simple, solid spheres, they're more like tiny, energetic beehives buzzing with activity. Inside each proton, quarks are zipping around, held together by massless gluons, the carriers of the strong force. These gluons are like the honey that holds the hive together, and they obey the rules of the SU(3) symmetry, which, by the way, is as unbreakable. This unbroken SU(3) symmetry ensures that gluons remain massless and confined within the proton's volume. Now, why does this matter? Well, when we're trying to understand the **vacuum energy density** of the universe, the so-called cosmological constant problem, we need to consider the quantum fluctuations that contribute to this energy. By focusing on these massless gluons confined within the proton volume, the author shifts the spotlight from the mass of protons (which would indeed add up to an impossibly massive universe if counted naively) to the energetic dance of gluons inside. It's like appreciating the energy of a party not by counting the guests (which could make the place seem overcrowded) but by enjoying the music and dancing happening within the room. The room's size (the proton volume) stays the same, but the vibe comes from the massless gluons grooving to the beat of unbroken SU(3) symmetry. So, by titling the author work **"Unbreakable SU(3) Vacuum Atoms,"** the author cleverly highlights the role of these massless gluons and the significance of the unbroken symmetry. It's not just about protons as particles with mass; it's about the fundamental forces and fields that permeate space at the smallest scales without overloading the universe with extra mass. This approach allows us to calculate the vacuum energy density more accurately without ending up with a universe that's heavier than a sumo wrestler at an all-you-can-eat buffet! It addresses the cosmological constant problem by considering the contributions of massless gluon fields confined within proton volumes, all thanks to the unbreakable SU(3) symmetry.

You know, physics is a bit like trying to understand a grand symphony while sitting in the orchestra pit. Sometimes, we're so caught up playing our own instruments that we forget to listen to the music as a whole. The third law of thermodynamics and experimental phenomena like the Meissner effect aren't just notes on a page, they're the melodies we've heard and verified time and time again. Now, I understand that after decades of sailing the seas of mainstream physics, charting courses towards supersymmetry, the multiverse, and **extra dimensions, it might feel like we're being asked to abandon ship in favor of some new vessel that seems untested. But here's the thing: if the ship hasn't reached the shore after all this time, maybe it's worth checking if there's a leak. Supersymmetry and its friends are fascinating, they're like the mysterious islands marked on ancient maps with dragons and sirens. Exciting, but we've yet to actually land on them. Meanwhile, the solid ground of experimentally verified physics is right beneath our feet. The low-energy vacuum near absolute zero isn't some abstract concept; it's a realm we've explored in laboratories. It's like finding a hidden room in a house we thought we knew inside out. Just because it's been overlooked doesn't mean it's not real or significant. I get that it's hard to entertain the idea that years of research might not lead us to the promised land. But science isn't about clinging to familiar shores; it's about daring to set sail for new horizons when the old maps don't quite line up with the stars. So, rather than seeing this as throwing away valuable work, think of it as tuning our instruments to a different key, one that's in harmony with what we've actually observed. Let's not ignore a potentially beautiful melody just because it's not the one we've been rehearsing.

First off, let's chat about supersymmetry, or SUSY for short. Think of SUSY as this grand idea where every particle we know, the electrons, quarks, has a partner called a superpartner. But here's the catch: despite decades of searching with our most powerful technology, particle accelerators, we haven't found a single one of these superpartners. It's like planning a surprise party for someone who doesn't exist. Now, theorists suggest that in a perfectly supersymmetric universe, the vacuum energy, the energy of empty space, would be exactly zero. That's because the positive energy from particles called bosons would perfectly cancel out the negative energy from particles called fermions. It's like having a perfectly balanced seesaw. But since we haven't observed any superpartners, leaning on SUSY is like building a house on quicksand. On the flip side, the author comes in with an idea rooted in solid, well-tested physics. Instead of banking on speculative theories, he turn to the trusty third law of thermodynamics and the experimental Meissner effect from superconductivity. The third law of thermodynamics tells us that as a system gets colder and colder, approaching absolute zero, its entropy, or disorder, drops to a minimum. The Meissner effect shows that when certain materials become superconductors at low temperatures, they kick out magnetic fields entirely. It's like a crowded room suddenly clearing out when someone starts playing bagpipes, everything unwanted gets expelled to achieve a more orderly state. So, the author suggests that the universe isn't this smooth, continuous fabric we often think of. Instead, it's made up of a finite number of tiny building blocks, like cosmic Lego bricks. These are called SU(3) units, based on the symmetry group that describes the strong force holding quarks together in protons. Think of them as the fundamental "atoms" of space itself. That is whynyhe author mentioned Snyder quantum spacetime in his paper. Now, Quantum Field Theory (QFT) predicts an enormous vacuum energy because it assumes space is continuous and counts every possible fluctuation, no matter how tiny or improbable. It's like trying to calculate the weight of a library by counting not just the books but every single letter on every page, even the spaces! You end up with a number so huge it's meaningless, a vacuum energy density that's \(10^{123}\) times larger than what we actually observe. That's a one followed by 123 zeros! It's as if you ordered a cup of coffee and they delivered an ocean. By recognizing that the universe is made up of these finite SU(3) units, the author avoids this overcounting. The vacuum energy is calculated based on actual, physical units. This approach lines up beautifully with what we observe in the cosmos, giving us a precise value for the cosmological constant without resorting to speculative ideas like SUSY. Now, let's tackle your two specific questions: **1. Why does QFT predict such a monumental overcount in vacuum energy?** In QFT, we're essentially adding up the energy of every possible vibration of every field at every point in space, up to incredibly high energies. It's like trying to count every grain of sand in the universe, including ones we haven't discovered yet! This method doesn't consider that space might be made up of discrete chunks—the SU(3) units—limiting the number of vibrations that can actually occur. So, the overcount happens because we're including energy contributions from fluctuations that don't physically exist. **2. Why isn't the actual vacuum energy exactly zero but a small positive value?** Some theorists argue that if SUSY were real and unbroken, the vacuum energy would be zero due to perfect cancellations between bosons and fermions. But since we haven't found any evidence for SUSY, and any supersymmetry that might exist must be broken, this perfect balancing act doesn't happen. A broken SUSY would leave a small residual vacuum energy, a little leftover that doesn't get canceled out. But again, this is speculative without experimental confirmation at all for the SUSY theory. In contrast, the author's model doesn't rely on unproven theories. By considering the universe as made up of these discrete, stable SU(3) units, using the volume of the proton as the fundamental unit, the vacuum energy naturally comes out as a small positive value that matches what we observe precisely. This isn't some wild guess; it's grounded in the third law of thermodynamics, reminding us that systems prefer to be in low-entropy, stable states, and the Meissner effect, showing how systems expel energy to reach those states. dismissing the author's idea, which is based on solid, experimentally supported physics, in favor of speculative theories like SUSY seems a bit like choosing a mirage over a glass of water when thirsty. Sometimes, the best solutions come from re-examining what we already know, using the tools and principles that have stood the test of time. After all, physics isn't just about chasing after exotic, unverified ideas; it's about understanding the universe using concepts we can test and observe. And who knows? Maybe by looking at the universe as a giant Lego set made of protons, we're onto something big. It's like realizing you've been sitting on a treasure chest all along, you just needed to look under your chair!

Imagine you have a bottle full of neutrons. You’re treating each neutron as a microstate, and that makes sense if you’re just counting them in that bottle. But here’s the thing: neutrons don’t just stay the same over time. They decay into protons, electrons, and antineutrinos. This means the number of neutrons is going to decrease over time because they are unstable. So, if we’re talking about entropy, we cannot ignore that decay. The neutron’s decay gives it more ways to change and increases the number of possible states, which means higher entropy. Now, let’s compare that to deuterium. Deuterium is a combination of a proton and a neutron bound together. When they are bound, they stabilize each other. So, if you have a bottle full of deuterium, it’s more stable. The number density of deuterium will stay more or less the same because they are not decaying like free neutrons. But deuterium still has more possible microstates than a proton by itself because you have two particles interacting, and that adds complexity. A proton, on its own, is very stable. It doesn’t have natural decay pathways under normal conditions. It just stays a proton, with fewer ways to change compared to a neutron or even deuterium. That’s why the author chose the proton for this analysis. He wanted the most stable, simplest unit possible, with the lowest entropy, to help understand the vacuum energy of the universe.

You are correct that any neutron, when examined in isolation, retains its inherent internal microstates—it remains a neutron, composed of up and down quarks and held together by the strong interaction. However, my point pertains to the concept of **accessible microstates over time**, rather than just the internal microstates at a particular instant. The S-matrix is used to describe the possible transitions a particle can undergo. For the neutron, due to the weak interaction and the CKM mixing, it has a decay path where it transforms into a proton, electron, and antineutrino. These decay pathways represent additional accessible configurations, effectively increasing the number of possible microstates that the neutron can occupy over time. The proton, by contrast, is stable under normal conditions and does not undergo spontaneous decay. Consequently, its S-matrix is simpler, with fewer pathways to alternative states, resulting in fewer accessible microstates overall compared to the neutron. The distinction I am making is not about the inherent microstates that define the neutron as a neutron, but rather about the broader set of accessible states that arise due to the decay process. The neutron's ability to decay into other particles introduces additional possible states, which increases its entropy. The proton, lacking such decay channels, remains in a lower entropy state with fewer accessible outcomes. This distinction is key when considering entropy and stability, particularly in relation to the third law of thermodynamics, which favors minimal entropy in stable systems.

You're right that both protons and neutrons are made of quarks, and both have complex internal structures. They have all these quarks, color charges, and strong interactions that keep everything together, and that means they both have internal microstates. In that sense, they are pretty similar. But here's the key difference. The neutron is unstable, it has a habit of falling apart, and that happens because of the weak interaction. The neutron undergoes beta decay, turning into a proton, an electron, and an antineutrino. Every time it does that, you have more possible outcomes, more microstates to deal with. It is like having a machine with a lot of different ways it can break down, and that means more disorder, more entropy. So when you look at the neutron's S-matrix, you are not just seeing internal quark stuff, you are also seeing all these possible decay channels, and that adds up to a lot more accessible states. Now let’s look at the proton. The proton, on the other hand, is stable. It does not just fall apart on its own. It stays put. No natural decay paths under normal conditions. That stability means the proton has fewer ways to evolve, fewer accessible final states. So if you look at the proton's S-matrix, it is much simpler—fewer transitions, fewer accessible microstates, and therefore, lower entropy compared to neutron. So, even though both particles have similar internal structures, what really matters here is how they behave over time. The neutron has this extra layer of complexity because it can decay, and that gives it a higher number of accessible microstates. The proton, by staying stable, has fewer accessible states and lower entropy. When you need minimal entropy, like what the third law of thermodynamics is talking about, the proton is just the ideal choice. It stays steady, does not add chaos, and keeps everything orderly. It is not just about what is inside, it is about what they do over time.

It seems like there is a fundamental point being missed here. The number of microstates for the neutron is significantly greater than that of the proton, and this directly impacts the entropy. According to the third law of thermodynamics, as systems approach absolute zero, they must reach a state of minimal entropy, meaning the system should have as few microstates as possible, leading to maximum stability and order. The expression for entropy \( S \) in terms of the number of microstates \( \Omega \) is given by Boltzmann's entropy formula: \[ S = k_B \ln(\Omega) \] In this equation, \( \Omega \) represents the number of different ways the system’s energy can be arranged. The more microstates available, the greater the entropy. Since the neutron can undergo beta decay, it has many potential microstates, which leads to increased entropy. On the other hand, the proton is inherently stable and has fewer available microstates, resulting in lower entropy. This lower entropy aligns perfectly with the requirement for minimum entropy as dictated by the third law of thermodynamics. Thus, in terms of the third law, the proton, with its lower number of microstates and resulting lower entropy, is a better fit for the condition of minimal entropy compared to the neutron, which inherently has more microstates and higher entropy.

here's the key difference: both neutrons and protons are bound by SU(3) interactions, the strong force. However, the neutron is inherently unstable because of the SU(2) gauge field, which is the weak force. The **neutron undergoes beta decay via the SU(2) weak interaction, breaking down into a proton**, an electron, and an antineutrino. This process adds entropy, increasing disorder which makes the neutron unsuitable for what the third law of thermodynamics requires. The third law says that as systems approach absolute zero, they need to be in a state of minimal entropy, as ordered and stable as possible. The neutron with its tendency to decay and create disorder, doesn’t meet that standard. The proton on the other hand, doesn’t have natural decay channels under natural conditions, it’s inherently stable This stability makes the proton a much better fit for representing a low-entropy building block of the universe’s vacuum structure. The proton stays put and keeps everything in order, fitting the minimum entropy condition that the third law demands. The number of protons we can see in the universe, that’s what’s in ordinary matter like stars, planets, and galaxies. But that’s just 5% of the entire universe. The other 95% is made up of dark matter and dark energy, things we can’t see directly but know are there because they affect how galaxies move and how the universe expands. It’s like looking at an iceberg. The part above water—the visible 5%, is like the ordinary matter we can see. But the much bigger part below the surface, that 95%, that’s the **dark matter and dark energy. If we just counted what’s above water, we’d be missing the real size and structure of the whole iceberg. That’s why the author used the volume of a proton instead of just counting the visible protons. It’s not about counting what we can see; it’s about using a unit that represents the entire cosmic structure. The proton volume allows the author to calculate the number of SU(3) vacuum atoms, which account for both the visible and invisible parts of the universe, and which explained precisely the cosmological constant.

It all comes down to stability, entropy, and what we’re really trying to get at. The author is talking about vacuum energy, not just the stuff we can see, like stars, gas, and galaxies that light up the night sky. We’re talking about everything: dark matter, dark energy, and the whole underlying fabric that makes the universe tick. It’s about understanding what makes the whole space. According to the third law of thermodynamics, as things get colder and closer to absolute zero, they need to become more ordered, less chaotic. Think about a cup of hot coffee: the atoms are buzzing around, jittery and restless. Now, imagine cooling it down to near absolute zero. Everything quiets down, the chaos fades, and you’re left with order, no extra movement, no noise. That’s what the author is trying to describe for the vacuum energy, finding a unit that’s super stable with low entropy, and that’s where the free proton comes in. The free proton is like a brick that just doesn’t crumble. It doesn’t have any natural decay channels that conserve both charge and energy. It’s solid, unchanging, the kind of fundamental building block you want when you’re describing something stable. Now, let’s talk about the numbers. You’ve got 10^80, which is how many protons are in all the ordinary matter we can see, stars, planets, and everything out there that shines or glows. But that’s just 5% of the universe. It’s like standing on a beach and only counting the waves you can see on the surface—that’s 10^80. But 10^123 SU(3) vacuum atoms? That’s the entire ocean: the waves, the deep currents, and everything beneath the surface, including the dark matter and dark energy we can’t directly see. It’s the whole cosmic picture. The author uses the volume of a proton because it’s the most stable, low-entropy unit there is. If you want to get a handle on the vacuum structure, what fills the space in the universe, you need something that doesn’t break down, something fundamental that can act as a real building block. Here’s the really neat part: the number 10^123 isn’t just some shot in the dark. It actually explains precisely what we see—the expansion of the universe or the cosmological constant. The match is too perfect to ignore. It’s like seeing trees sway in the wind; you may not see the wind, but the way the leaves move tells you something real is making it happen. The author’s number for the SU(3) vacuum atoms lines up with the actual expansion rate, so it’s telling us we’re onto something fundamental. That’s why the author’s approach is compelling. It’s not just a thought experiment, it’s an insight backed by observation and fundamental laws.

Your questions made me understand the author arguments more clearly. The proton and neutron might seem similar since they’re both built from quarks held together by the strong force, but they’re not the same when it comes to stability and entropy. Neutrons? They decay, breaking down into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino. That breakdown matters, it means more ways for things to fall apart, more “messiness” or entropy in the system. The proton, though, is different. It doesn’t decay (at least, we’ve never seen it happen), and it doesn’t have any available decay channels in the standard model that wouldn’t violate fundamental conservation laws, like charge conservation. Simply put, it’s stable because the rules of physics don’t give it a way out. So, the proton’s stability is directly tied to these conservation laws. This stability means the proton has minimal entropy, it doesn’t have all those extra states it could move into. And here’s where the third law of thermodynamics kicks in: as a system gets down to close to absolute zero, it demands a setup with as little entropy as possible. This is why the proton fits the bill perfectly. When we’re looking to break down the vacuum energy into stable, low-entropy “units” in the context of SU(3), it’s not just about taking any volume, we need something as stable as they come, with minimal entropy. The proton’s locked-down, conservation-law-protected structure makes it the ideal candidate for this job. So, when we talk about the proton as representing an SU(3) vacuum atom, it’s not just about its size; it’s about its role as the ultimate low-entropy, stable unit in the structure of the vacuum.

Good question indeed. As you get closer to absolute zero, the third law of thermodynamics is saying, "I want a system that’s as orderly and low-entropy as possible." Now, look at liquid helium. Sure, it’s fascinating stuff—flows without friction, does all sorts of quantum tricks. But even down there near zero, it’s still got a lot of atomic hustle and too many possible states, which means higher entropy. Enter the proton. This thing is rock-solid, It’s stable, and has very few microstates to mess with, exactly what the third law ordered for a low-entropy, high-order setup at the coldest extremes. So, if we are looking for the perfect fit for a minimal-entropy remnant, the proton’s our guy. This is an interesting note. Can you give more details? It’s not just about volume, what really matters is remnant volume with minimal entropy. The third law of thermodynamics is looking for something stable and with the least possible disorder. Now, the neutron might look similar in size to the proton, but here’s the catch: free neutrons don’t stick around, they decay, and that means extra entropy. The proton, on the other hand, is rock solid. It’s stable, no decay, and has minimal entropy because it doesn’t have extra states to fall into. So if you’re looking for a low-entropy remnant that satisfies the third law, it’s the proton that wins.

Well, the choice of the proton isn’t about convenience, it’s about its physical significance. The proton is stable; we’ve never seen it decay, and it stands strong under SU(3) symmetry, even when U(1) breaks down. That’s what gives it physical meaning beyond just being a handy reference. It’s not a random choice, it’s a backed by what we know from experiment and theory.

Good questions. Why not the hydrogen atom? Well, hydrogen is a little more complicated. It’s made of a proton and an electron and that electron’s got U(1) symmetry written all over it, which breaks at low temperatures. So, hydrogen isn't the best candidate because it's tied to electromagnetic interactions, not exactly stable if you're looking at what happens when U(1) breaks. The proton, though? That’s a different story. Now, about quarks. Sure, up and down quarks are part of the SU(3) game, but they’ve got a problem: you never find them alone. They’re always confined, stuck inside protons, neutrons, whatever. Quarks are like that friend who never leaves the party alone, they’re always bound together, thanks to quark confinement. The proton, on the other hand, is the smallest, most stable package of SU(3) stuff we can actually observe. It’s been tested again and again, and it’s never been seen to decay. So why pick the proton as the remnant volume? Because it’s the simplest stable bound state that’s pure SU(3). It’s the one structure that stays unbriken under the third law of thermodynamics, when you get to those really low temperatures, it’s still standing. That’s what makes it perfect for this context. We need something stable, something minimal, and something that stays intact with SU(3) symmetry. That’s the proton. It’s not just a random pick, it’s the only choice that makes sense if you want a fundamental remnant that’s consistent with what we observe in the vacuum.

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.