JosephDavid

Physics is fundamentally an empirical science, its foundation is built on measurements, observations, and experiments. It’s not about math for math’s sake; instead, math is just a language we use to describe physical phenomena. The real core of physics exists in connecting these descriptions to what we can actually measure. In this paper, the author uses the math of spontaneous symmetry breaking and Snyder’s quantum spacetime, not as ends in themselves, but as tools to explain real, observable phenomena. The achievement here is in how the author finds logical connections between these physical measurements, uniting them in a simple, coherent relationship. This isn’t about whether there’s enough math and adding several complications, it’s about whether the math helps us understand and explain the empirical data we observe. The author managed to do exactly that, building a bridge between very solid physical concepts that leads to a clearer understanding of the universe, grounded in what we can actually measure.

The author’s proposal is tied directly to some very solid experimental facts. We all know that the proton has never been observed to decay. That’s crucial. It means that, practically speaking, the proton is a stable structure, which strongly suggests that there’s something fundamental about its existence. Now, pair that with the third law of thermodynamics, which implies that as we approach absolute zero, there should always be some kind of remnant volume that doesn’t just vanish or break down. This tells us that there’s an unbroken, stable structure remaining even at the lowest energy states. Now, what the author is doing is connecting these dots: if there’s a remnant volume, and we know that protons don’t decay and are associated with SU(3) symmetry, then it makes perfect sense to use the volume of the proton as the benchmark for this remnant state. The SU(3) symmetry is unbreakable, it remains stable even when other symmetries like U(1) are broken near zero kelvin. That’s what makes protons so fundamental. The author matches this remnant volume, implied by the third law with the proton volume, defining SU(3) units or vacuum atoms. These SU(3) units can be used to explain why the vacuum energy doesn’t explode to some ridiculous value like QFT tells us it should. Instead, it’s spread out across these stable SU(3) units, bringing the predicted value right down to what we actually observe as dark energy. So, what’s being overlooked here is that this whole approach is anchored in solid principles: the experimental stability of the proton, the third law of thermodynamics, and the fundamental unbreakability of SU(3) symmetry. The author isn’t skipping the foundations—he’s grounding the whole argument in them. It’s about finding a stable, unbroken remnant that matches what we see in nature, and that’s why using the proton volume as the basis makes so much sense. This is what lets the author solve the cosmological constant problem with high precision.

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-weakening-major-astrophysics-study-finds-20240404/

The author cited this paper. They are very related.

That is interesting. You are touching a topic that the same author investigated recently and published in https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S0218271824500366

Alright, here’s the thing. The misunderstanding here is thinking of the universe and the proton as three-dimensional objects, they’re not. They’re both four-dimensional, with three spatial dimensions plus one time dimension. Now, if you take the boundary (surface area) of the universe and divide it by the boundary of a proton, you get a huge number, the author obtained, 10^(123). That number is supposed to tell us, by holography, about how many su(3) atoms could filling up the universe. Here’s where it gets interesting: the “holographic principle” says that everything inside a volume can be described by information on its boundary. Now, in quantum field theory (QFT), if you integrate over all the vacuum energy in four dimensions, you get this massive energy density, way bigger than what we actually observe as dark energy. But by applying the holographic idea, that huge number from our boundary comparison lets us spread out this QFT vacuum energy across all those SU(3) vacuum atoms. The result? The vacuum energy density drops down to the observed dark energy precisely. This gives a holographic explanation for dark energy confined in our four-dimensional universe and effectively solving the cosmological constant problem. I read in the paper that the author used in Eq 27 a distribution implied by Snyder quantum spacetime which may be more fundamental than the statistical distributions such as Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac.

That is very interesting hint, can you elaborate more ?

Do you think this paper relevant ? https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12481-7

Ah, that's an interesting point you've brought up! The author citing papers connected to the holographic principle and mentioning in the abstract that this solution might shed light on the origin of gauge/gravity dualities adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. You see, the holographic principle is this fascinating idea that suggests all the information contained in a volume of space can be represented as a theory on the boundary of that space, kind of like how a hologram works. It's a deep concept that bridges quantum mechanics and gravity. The author might be aiming to provide insights into how gauge theories (SU(3)) relate to gravitational theories through cosmological constant lens. This ties into the gauge/gravity duality, which is a powerful concept in theoretical physics suggesting that certain gauge theories are equivalent to gravity theories in higher dimensions. If the author's approach can highlight the origin of these dualities, it could be a significant step toward understanding how different forces in the universe are connected at a fundamental level. It might even offer clues about how spacetime and gravity emerge from more basic quantum processes. So, not only is the paper addressing the cosmological constant problem by proposing that dark energy behaves like a superconductor state of matter, but it's also potentially shedding light on deep connections between quantum field theories and gravity. That's pretty exciting stuff! It's always amazing to see how ideas from different areas of physics can converge, offering new perspectives and solutions to longstanding problems. As Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Exploring these new connections might be just what's needed to push our understanding forward.

Exactly, that’s the point! He is doing the former, comparing volumes, not dividing the number of SU(3) atoms by the universe volume.

The equation you derived is (energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume). So, you're saying SU(3) effective volume by universe volume is the same as SU(3) atoms by universe volume? The first is about comparing volumes, but the second is like dividing the number of these atoms over the universe volume. There's a clear difference in meaning there, right?

Exactly! You got the division twisted. The author ain’t dividing SU(3) atoms by the universe volume. he’s calculating it by dividing the universe volume by the SU(3) effective volume. Big difference. What the author’s really pushing is that dark energy is like a superconductor state of matter. All it needs is two composite electrons acting like a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry and leave SU(3) intact. That’s the real deal he’s talkin’ about.

Gotcha, and I respect that. My way of talking just helps me express more clearly, but I get that it might not work for everyone here. Apologies if it came off the wrong way.

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?