A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[Albert2024]

A recent idea offers a new perspective on one of the biggest mysteries in physics: the nature of dark energy. This proposal suggests that dark energy—the mysterious force driving the universe's expansion—could resemble a superconducting state of matter, composed of roughly 10^123 small "units" called SU(3) atoms, which stabilize the vacuum energy. The approach relies on well-established physical principles, such as the Meissner effect (seen in superconductors) and the third law of thermodynamics. According to this idea, at extremely low temperatures, the Meissner effect breaks U(1) symmetry while leaving SU(3) symmetry intact. To calculate the number of these SU(3) atoms in the universe, one could divide the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a proton, arriving at approximately 10^123 atoms. This number aligns precisely with quantum field theory (QFT) predictions for vacuum energy density, potentially resolving the long-standing discrepancy between theoretical calculations and observed values. What makes this idea compelling is its simplicity—it requires no exotic extensions or fine-tuning, sticking to established physics. It also proposes that the third law of thermodynamics keeps these SU(3) units stable at very low temperatures, ensuring that the vacuum energy remains consistent. This experimentally grounded and straightforward approach makes it worth considering: could this be the answer we've been searching for, or are there significant challenges that still need addressing?

For those interested, you can read the paper here: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2778290.

[Mordred]

Interesting conjecture the paper itself seems to be rather lacking in certain details.

For example I couldn't see anything I could use to determine an effective equation of state for the cosmological term itself for any means of testability using observation.

If I'm missing that could you provide how an effective of state would be derived from the article.

I also didn't see how one applies thermodynamic relations such as any pertinent temperature contribution  via the Bose-Einstein, Fermi-Dirac statistics so I can only assume what you refer to as an SU(3) atom is and of itself not a particle contribution. 

It also surprises me you didn't include the relevant equations to the quantum harmonic oscillator in momentum space which led to the vacuum catastrophe. 

That detail is described under the minimally coupled scalar field langrene.

 

Edited 4 hours ago by Mordred

[swansont]

1 hour ago, Albert2024 said:

This experimentally grounded and straightforward approach

What’s the experimental path to confirming this?

[Mordred]

lets detail the cosmological constant problem then you can show me how your paper solves this problem I will keep it simple for other readers by not using the Langrene  for the time being and simply give a more algebraic treatment. ( mainly to help our other members).

To start under QFT the normal modes of a field is a set of harmonic oscillators I will simply apply this as a bosons for simple representation as energy never exists on its own

\[E_b=\sum_i(\frac{1}{2}+n_i)\hbar\omega_i\] where n_i is the individual modes n_i=(1,2,3,4.......)

we can identify this with vacuum energy as 

\[E_\Lambda=\frac{1}{2}\hbar\omega_i\]

the energy of a particle k with momentum is

\[k=\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4}\]

from this we can calculate the sum by integrating over the momentum states to obtain the vacuum energy density.

\[\rho_\Lambda c^2=\int^\infty_0=\frac{4\pi k^2 dk}{(3\pi\hbar)^3}(\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{k^2c^2+m^2c^4})\]

where \(4\pi k^2 dk\) is the momentum phase space volume factor.

the effective cutoff  can be given at the Planck momentum

\[k_{PL}=\sqrt{\frac{\hbar c^3}{G_N}}\simeq 10^{19}GeV/c\]

gives

\[\rho \simeq \frac{K_{PL}}{16 \pi^2\hbar^3 c}\simeq\frac{10^74 Gev^4}{c^2(\hbar c)^3} \simeq 2*10^{91} g/cm^3\]

compared to the measured Lambda term via the critical density formula

\[2+10^{-29} g/cm^3\]

method above given under 

Relativity, Gravitation and Cosmology by Ta-Pei Cheng page 281 appendix A.14

(Oxford Master series in Particle physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology)

 

So can you show how your paper addresses this in more detail.

As your not familiar with this forums latex structure use

\[latex\*] for new line \(latex\*) for inline I included the * simply to prevent activation.

that way you can post your equations from the article here where needed as well as answer any other questions where the math is needed

 

 

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by Mordred

[Genady]

Do I understand correctly that this is a Speculation rather than a science of Astronomy and Cosmology?

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Genady said:

Do I understand correctly that this is a Speculation rather than a science of Astronomy and Cosmology?

lets put it this way from what I read via the Research-gate copy as I don't care to join Inspire are far too few to really describe the theory in the article nor many of its claims. I didn't see any copy that I could confirm is peer reviewed.  The copy I read is a preprint. The math inclusive in the article is a more common treatment of the cosmological problem and brief descriptive's of other commonly know equations including its mentions of Snyder's Algebra 

I honestly don't see any equations specific to the papers theory. 

!

Moderator Note

The article itself has far too many claims not supported within the article in terms of any calculations specific to its claims to be considered an article within the rules required for mainstream Physics . Please review the requirements and rules for the speculation forum given in the pinned threads above. 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Mordred