Sandeepkapo

Could this perspective suggest that spacetime itself emerges from more fundamental holographic information encoded in SU(3) structures? Can you explain how the holographic principle is connected to the solution introduced in this paper ?

Let's try to clear up some of the confusion here. First off, the SU(3) gauge symmetry you're talking about is related to the strong nuclear force—the interactions between quarks inside protons and neutrons. This symmetry remains unbroken, even at temperatures close to absolute zero. The key point is that the strong force operates at energy scales much higher than what we deal with in thermal physics at low temperatures. Now, you're asking how we can maintain temperatures below 1 Kelvin and still have the SU(3) momentum terms untouched. The thing is, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, but the strong interactions governed by SU(3) are internal to nucleons (protons and neutrons) and aren't significantly affected by such low external temperatures. The quarks inside protons and neutrons are bound together so tightly that the thermal energy at 1 Kelvin is negligible in comparison. For example, consider superconductors, which operate at very low temperatures. Even in materials cooled to fractions of a Kelvin, the protons and neutrons in their nuclei are still there, doing their thing, and the SU(3) symmetry is still at play. The electrons become superconducting, but the nucleons remain unaffected in terms of their strong interactions. Liquid helium is another good example. When helium is cooled below 2.17 Kelvin, it becomes a superfluid with fascinating quantum properties. Yet, despite this extreme cooling, the protons and neutrons in helium atoms continue to interact via the strong force as they always do. The SU(3) symmetry doesn't disappear or change because of the low temperature. Think of it this way: it’s like trying to alter the course of a speeding bullet by blowing on it. No matter how hard you blow, the bullet doesn’t notice. Similarly, the strong force doesn’t “feel” the low-temperature environment because its energy scale is so much higher. So, maintaining a system at less than 1 Kelvin doesn't interfere with SU(3) momentum terms because those interactions are internal and at much higher energy scales than thermal energies. The strong force is about a million times stronger than electromagnetic interactions, and thermal fluctuations at such low temperatures are too feeble to impact it. Regarding your concern about the number of SU(3) "vacuum atoms" exceeding the particle count in the observable universe: these "vacuum atoms" are a conceptual tool used to model the vacuum energy density. Comparing their number directly to the number of CMB photons isn't quite the right approach. You compare two different things! The model proposes that the vacuum can be thought of as being composed of these SU(3) vacuum units, and by doing so, it attempts to address the cosmological constant problem. By considering the vacuum at the scale of the strong force, the model aims to redistribute the vacuum energy in a way that makes sense with observations. Photons counts belong to different kind of force that already broken by Meissner effect. When you mention the critical density equating to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter at 2.73 Kelvin, you're talking about the average density of normal matter in the universe. The cosmological constant problem is about vacuum energy, which is a different aspect altogether. So, the model doesn't conflict with the observed matter density or the properties of the cosmic microwave background. It's offering a new way to think about how vacuum energy arises from fundamental symmetries that remain unbroken, like SU(3), and how this could solve a long-standing puzzle in physics. Hope that helps clear things up!

You've got the gist of what the author's getting at, but let me clarify a bit. The author is still using the Planck scale as the cutoff in the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, that's standard in quantum field theory. But here's where things get interesting: instead of accepting that enormous vacuum energy density we get from QFT with this cutoff (you know, the one that's off by about 123 orders of magnitude from what we observe), the author proposes a new way to look at it. He suggests that the vacuum energy isn't just uniformly spread out but is effectively distributed over a huge number of "SU(3) vacuum atoms." Now, these aren't atoms like you find on the periodic table. They're units associated with the unbroken SU(3) symmetry of the strong nuclear force. To figure out how many of these SU(3) atoms there are, he divides the total volume of the universe by the volume of a proton, since protons are governed by SU(3) symmetry. By thinking of the vacuum energy as spread out over all these SU(3) atoms, the effective vacuum energy density comes way down. This redistribution brings the theoretical prediction precisely equal to the observed value, tackling that massive discrepancy without changing the Planck scale cutoff itself. Now, you mentioned you still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale, and that's a reasonable concern. The author is basing this scale on the properties of the strong nuclear force and the unbroken SU(3) symmetry, arguing that this scale might be more relevant for vacuum energy considerations. It's a departure from the usual methods, sure, but it offers a fresh perspective on the cosmological constant problem that might be worth exploring further. In essence, the author isn't throwing out the Planck scale but is reinterpreting how the vacuum energy calculated with it can be reconciled with what we actually observe, by considering the structure of the vacuum at the scale of the strong force. It's an interesting idea that challenges us to think differently about a long-standing problem.

It is commendable that you recognize the legitimacy of the concept, for that is indeed the cornerstone of the paper. The derivation of SU(3) vacuum atoms based on the proposed framework is a logical consequence, and we must remember that mathematics, while indispensable, is merely the language we use to articulate these ideas, what truly matters is the underlying concept. Upon closer inspection of the paper, it becomes clear that the author employs two composite electrons as a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry, which is entirely consistent with spontaneous symmetry breaking as it is applied in condensed matter physics. This approach is far from unconventional; it aligns with established methods, merely adapted to address a novel issue. While you may have sought a more concrete definition of the SU(3) atoms, considering the effective range of the nuclear force is, in this context, both reasonable and appropriate. To describe the paper as “unusable” strikes me as an overstatement, given that the physics it presents is sound and the theoretical foundation well established. Certainly, there is always room for further development, particularly in the mathematical details, where i find that he is arguing that these su(3) vacuum atoms implies a quantum nature of the spacetime. It seems there might be some misunderstanding regarding the author's use of terms and concepts. While I'm not defending the paper, I can appreciate the logical framework it presents. The term "vacuum atom" is employed as a conceptual tool to describe the quantization of space at the scale of SU(3) symmetry. The number of these su(3) vacuum atoms is derived from dividing universe volume by proton volume. This approach isn't merely about scaling the universe using SU(3); it's about relating these symmetries to the very structure of the vacuum because su(3) remains unbreakable. Additionally, the paper suggests that the expansion of the universe can be understood through the Meissner effect, that is similar to the expulsion of magnetic fields in superconductors. This idea was first published by the same author in JCAP as he explained in the introduction of the paper [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012 ]. By drawing parallels between cosmic expansion and the Meissner effect, the author offers a novel perspective that could open new avenues for research, potentially using condensed matter techniques to investigate cosmological phenomena. In essence, the paper lays down a logical foundation based on established physics principles, offering fresh insights into complex cosmological issues.

I explored further and found experimental work on the possibility of detection of dark energy within superconductors, such as: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2009/931920 And this one in PRL https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151802 It seems that the idea is also rooted in these recent experiments. Very interesting!

The idea presented in this paper brings us back to solid ground after more than 50 years of speculative theories filled with unclear assumptions that lack physical meaning or measurable evidence, such as the multiverse/extra dimensions. It’s like returning to the simplicity of nature’s truths. By proposing dark energy as a superconductor state of matter, the author solidifies an argument that has been hinted at in several prior works. For example, papers like the one in Phys. Rev. D ([10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042](https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042)) and the JCAP study ([DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012)) have already explored the idea of dark energy behaving like a superconductor. Similarly, the works found on arXiv ([arXiv:1712.10311](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.10311)) and in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D ([DOI: 10.1142/S0218271807011292](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271807011292)) discuss this direction, suggesting that superconductivity might be a key to understanding dark energy. What makes this paper interesting is its reliance on symmetry, which is the most powerful tools in physics. By applying symmetry breaking, particularly U(1) breaking while leaving SU(3) in an unbreakable state, the paper provides a clear, measurable framework that cuts through speculative ideas like the multiverse and focuses on well-established, testable physics. This makes the argument more robust and grounded, offering a meaningful explanation of dark energy that fits within the broader context of known physical laws.