JosephDavid

Alright, I see where you’re comin' from, but I think you’re missin' the core point of what’s bein' discussed. Nobody’s sayin' 10^123 is the QFT vacuum energy density. We all know QFT gives that absurdly high estimate when you cut off at the Planck scale. The point isn’t to defend that number, but to explain why the observed vacuum energy is so much lower than what QFT predicts. The paper talkin' about isn’t tryin' to justify the QFT number—it’s actually addressing the exact issue you're pointing out: why the vacuum energy is so low compared to that 10^123 overcount from QFT. So the whole goal is to fix the very problem you’re talkin' about, not reinforce it.

Exactly, man! You’re sayin’ the math is solid, and when the dude applied it, he nailed the exact value that solved the cosmological constant problem—right down to the ridiculous 10^123 precision. How’s that a coincidence? It’s not. That’s the math doin’ its thing. You can’t say you know the formulas and then act like the solution doesn’t count when the numbers line up that perfectly. Bro, you’re wildin’. You’re straight-up contradicting yourself. Come on, this ain’t just luck. When the numbers check out like that, it’s solid. You’re gettin’ me twisted over here, man, I’m laughin’ ‘cause you’re fightin’ against the facts you already know are right!

Yo, you’re actin’ like this dude is pullin' stuff outta nowhere, but he proved his take with solid math too. He’s not just throwin' ideas around—he’s got the numbers to back it up. I don’t even get why you’re pushin' back so hard when he’s using legit math and well-known physics. You keep sayin' “mainstream,” but the guy’s usin' spontaneous symmetry breakin’, the third law of thermodynamics—stuff that’s real as it gets in physics. He just flipped the perspective, kinda like when spin showed up with no classical analogy but still worked ‘cause the math held up. let’s not act like spin just slid in smooth from “known physics” without nobody blinkin’. That thing didn’t even have a classical homie, but it worked ‘cause it explained what was goin’ down. Same vibe with this paper—it’s breakin’ new ground, but it’s still keepin’ it real. And seriously, just 'cause it’s new doesn’t mean it ain’t legit. Dude’s grindin' with math and established principles to crack a problem the old methods couldn’t touch. I don’t even get what part you’re missin’, but he’s got the proof, both with equations and real physics. So what’s the beef?

Alright, I hear you, but lemme hit you with this: remember when the spin concept first came out? That wasn’t "traditional" either—didn’t even have a classical analogy, but it worked because it explained the observations, just like this paper does. It wasn’t about stickin' to the old ways; it was about solving the problem. You’re talkin' like this paper throws out mainstream physics, but that’s not the case at all. I read the whole thing, and the author is using well-established principles—spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Meissner effect, and the third law of thermodynamics. These are real, solid physics ideas. There’s no wild leap into uncharted territory here, just a new take on how we look at the vacuum structure. So, yeah, I get that you’ve seen people try things over the years that didn’t work, but this ain’t one of those cases. This is grounded in solid physics, just taking it in a direction that the old methods didn’t manage to crack. Sometimes it takes thinkin’ outside the box, but still using legit tools to get the job done.

Let’s not forget—your traditional methods and all that textbook stuff didn’t solve the cosmological constant problem. Those old-school approaches, including QED and particle counting, didn’t crack it. But this paper? It did. Period. By breaking U(1) symmetry and focusing on SU(3) stability, it takes a new original approach that actually explains the vacuum energy density. So while I get where you’re coming from with the QED basics, they’ve been around, and they haven’t gotten the job done. This paper brings something new to the table, and that’s why it stands out. Simple as that, man.

Nah, bro, nobody’s saying ditch mainstream physics. What I’m sayin’ is, you gotta get that not everything fits into the same old particle count equations. Those equations you're bringin' up? They didn’t solve the problem and don’t give any real insight on the vacuum. This paper isn’t throwing away physics—it’s actually giving a fresh take. SU(3) vacuum structure is still legit physics, but it ain’t about counting particles like you keep mentioning. Mainstream physics is cool and all, but this approach the author’s introducing? It’s giving an original understanding of the vacuum that your standard methods just aren’t touching. Sometimes you gotta step outside the box to get the full picture.

Yo, you still ain’t gettin’ it. Sure, you can throw around Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac stats all you want, but that’s basic particle counting. This SU(3) stuff? It’s on a whole different level, we’re talkin’ vacuum energy structure, not tallying up particles like photons or fermions. That 10^123 ain’t about how many particles are chillin’ in the universe—it’s about the energy packed in the vacuum. So you can keep goin’ on about mainstream methods, but that’s not what we’re dealin’ with here. You gotta step outta that particle count mindset and look at the bigger picture: the actual framework of the vacuum.

Bruh, you’re tossin’ “numerology” like it’s some kinda slam, but it just shows you’re missing the whole point. We’re not out here counting particles like it’s some early universe photon stat game. The post talking SU(3) vacuum structure and QFT, real physics. That 10^123? It’s rooted in actual science, not some random number pulled out of thin air. Your Bose-Einstein photon density take? Way off, ’cause this is about vacuum energy density, not particle counts.

Thank you very much.

Does that mean the proton will never decay?

The paper is foundational, intriguing, and well comprehended. Could this suggest that massless gluons are indeed strong candidates for explaining dark energy?