Albert2024 Posted October 17 Posted October 17 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. 1
Mordred Posted October 18 Posted October 18 (edited) 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 October 18 by Mordred 1
swansont Posted October 18 Posted October 18 1 hour ago, Albert2024 said: This experimentally grounded and straightforward approach What’s the experimental path to confirming this?
Mordred Posted October 18 Posted October 18 (edited) 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 October 18 by Mordred
Genady Posted October 18 Posted October 18 Do I understand correctly that this is a Speculation rather than a science of Astronomy and Cosmology?
Mordred Posted October 18 Posted October 18 (edited) 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 October 18 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 (edited) Section II and Section III in the paper show all the math details On 10/17/2024 at 9:33 PM, Mordred said: 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 Eb=∑i(12+ni)ℏωi where n_i is the individual modes n_i=(1,2,3,4.......) we can identify this with vacuum energy as EΛ=12ℏωi the energy of a particle k with momentum is k=k2c2+m2c4−−−−−−−−−−√ from this we can calculate the sum by integrating over the momentum states to obtain the vacuum energy density. ρΛc2=∫∞0=4πk2dk(3πℏ)3(12k2c2+m2c4−−−−−−−−−−√) where 4πk2dk is the momentum phase space volume factor. the effective cutoff can be given at the Planck momentum kPL=ℏc3GN−−−−√≃1019GeV/c gives ρ≃KPL16π2ℏ3c≃1074Gev4c2(ℏc)3≃2∗1091g/cm3 compared to the measured Lambda term via the critical density formula 2+10−29g/cm3 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 Section II and Section III in the paper show all the math details Edited October 19 by Albert2024
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) Electroweak symmetry breaking is the opposite range of the temperature scale from absolute zero. The early universe temperatures are far higher than today Roughly 10^16 GeV it is trivial to convert GeV to Kelvin so why are you stating absolute zero for any symmetry breaking ? I also shouldn't need to go through dozens of links to get details that should be inclusive in your article. The article you posted had only the more common quantum harmonic calculation that does not include the phases requiring SU(3). At best only requires U(1). The Snyder portion you simply had the computations. In essence You haven't got your own calculations involved for how your determining the SU(3) atoms included in article which is essentially forcing the reader to search your huge link history trying to guess how your putting it together. In so far as the critical density that value varies over time it was far higher in the past than today. That will affect your second equation if I recall in the denominator terms. The critical density formula uses the Hubble parameter which is also far higher in the past than the value today. So you may want to look into that detail. The reason I asked about the equation of state is that you need to confirm your theory can keep that value constant as per observation evidence of the Lambda term. Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Mordred said: Electroweak symmetry breaking is the opposite range of the temperature scale from absolute zero. The early universe temperatures are far higher than today Roughly 10^16 GeV it is trivial to convert GeV to Kelvin so why are you stating absolute zero for any symmetry breaking ? Look at the table in the paper that outlines the temperature scales at which symmetry breaking occurs. As far as I understand from reading the paper, the universe began in the radiation-dominant era, where all particles were massless due to the extremely high temperatures (around 10^16 GeV and 10^29 K). At this stage, all symmetries (SU(3) × SU(2) × U(1)) were unbroken, and the universe was dominated by radiation energy. As the universe expanded and cooled, it reached the electroweak symmetry breaking scale (around 100 GeV, or approximately 10^15 K), where the electroweak symmetry broke, leading to the creation of mass. This marked the beginning of the matter-dominant era, where mass formed and matter became the dominant energy source. As the universe continued cooling, it transitioned into the dark energy-dominant era, where dark energy drives the accelerated expansion of the universe. In the current era, with an energy scale around 10^-3 eV and a temperature of 2.7 K, only SU(3) remains unbroken, while the experimental Meissner effect has broken U(1) at low temperatures. The authors argue that SU(3) is stabilized by the third law of thermodynamics, preventing further symmetry breaking. The third law of thermodynamics states that it is impossible to reach zero Kelvin by any finite number of physical cooling steps, implying that there is always a remnant volume that never vanishes, unlike what would happen according to ideal gas theory at absolute zero. This remnant volume appear to be the proton volume, and that may explain why proton has never been observed to decay. The reference to absolute zero is significant, as it emphasizes that at these extremely low temperatures, SU(3) remains unbroken, stabilizing the vacuum energy and providing a solution to the cosmological constant problem. The cosmological constant discrepancy, as noted by Weinberg, arises because quantum field theory (QFT) predicts a vacuum energy proportional to the fourth power of the Planck energy, resulting in an enormous value of 10^76 GeV, while the observed vacuum energy density is about 10^-47 GeV—a difference of 10^123 orders of magnitude. The mathematical approach of the paper is key to resolving this discrepancy. The author redefined the Lagrangian of QCD by dividing it by the 10^123 atoms of SU(3) that are realized to exist in the universe. This redefinition stems from the insight that there are approximately 10^123 atoms of vacuum energy based on the volume of the universe divided by the proton volume. When computing the vacuum energy density from this modified Lagrangian, the result matches the observed value precisely, solving the cosmological constant problem. I recommend reviewing the table in the paper for a clearer understanding of these phases and how they relate energy and temperature scales to symmetry-breaking events in the universe On 10/17/2024 at 9:22 PM, swansont said: What’s the experimental path to confirming this? If you read the paper, it is solidly based on the experimental Meissner effect, which shows that U(1) symmetry is experimentally broken at low temperatures, leaving SU(3) as the remaining symmetry close to absolute zero. The paper’s entire premise relies on this experimentally verified Meissner effect. Additionally, I have read another paper by the same author, where they demonstrated that dark energy represents a superconducting state of matter. This paper was published in JCAP, a highly prestigious journal. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012 Edited October 19 by Albert2024 1
swansont Posted October 19 Posted October 19 11 minutes ago, Albert2024 said: If you read the paper, it is solidly based on the experimental Meissner effect, which shows that U(1) symmetry is experimentally broken at low temperatures, leaving SU(3) as the remaining symmetry close to absolute zero. The paper’s entire premise relies on this experimentally verified Meissner effect. The rules require information to be posted here. The Meissner effect is experimentally confirmed. How is this proposal to be experimentally confirmed?
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 Yes but that isn't a supercooled state for the meissner effect particularly since the universe is charge neutral
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 Just now, swansont said: The rules require information to be posted here. The Meissner effect is experimentally confirmed. How is this proposal to be experimentally confirmed? The paper just used Meissner effect that implies breaking U(1) symmetry. When one uses this, only SU(3) remain intact. 1 minute ago, Mordred said: Yes but that isn't a supercooled state for the meissner effect particularly since the universe is charge neutral The Meissner effect happens for ordinary materials at 70 K or even higher. The average temperature of CMB is much lower. It is only 2.7 K. 1
swansont Posted October 19 Posted October 19 1 minute ago, Albert2024 said: The paper just used Meissner effect that implies breaking U(1) symmetry. When one uses this, only SU(3) remain intact. Which is theory. What experiment would confirm this?
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) Your paper you posted here only had less than 10 formulas All of which didn't show any additional details showing the relevant equations for the Meisner effect. As I mentioned your paper does not have the needed details without searching other literature to piece together what your thinking. Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 4 minutes ago, swansont said: Which is theory. What experiment would confirm this? The materials that exhibit the Meissner effect, confirmed in superconducting states, are part of the universe governed by the SU(3) × U(1) symmetry. When these materials enter the superconducting state at near absolute zero, they are effectively governed only by SU(3), as the U(1) symmetry is broken. This demonstrates that, in their superconducting state, these materials align with the behavior of the vacuum where only SU(3) symmetry remains unbroken. the authors argued for that in details in their JCAP papers https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012 2
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) Can you provide any formula or calculstion specifically your own any derivative specifically describing an SU(3) atom. Can you provide any equation of state specific to an SU(3) atom ? Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 (edited) 17 minutes ago, Mordred said: Your paper you posted here only had less than 10 formulas All of which didn't show any additional details showing the relevant equations for the Meisner effect. As I mentioned your paper does not have the needed details without searching other literature to piece together what your thinking. The Meissner effect is covered in Section II of the paper, and it's important to note that resolving the issues between QFT and GR isn't about the number of equations. Instead, it's about understanding key physical concepts. For example, de Broglie’s introduction of wave-particle duality or Pauli's conceptual explanation of spin didn’t rely on a flood of equations but rather on profound physical insights that shaped modern physics. Similarly, this paper is built on well-established experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and shows that the discrepancy between QFT and GR in calculating vacuum energy density stems from a misunderstanding of these underlying physical principles, not a lack of equations. The goal is to merge QFT and GR through clear conceptual understanding, rather than by adding more speculative postulates or mathematical complexity 8 minutes ago, Mordred said: Can you provide any formula or calculstion specifically your own any derivative specifically describing an SU(3) atom. Can you provide any equation of state specific to an SU(3) atom ? Read sections II and III that contains the equations that describes these SU(3) atoms. 6 minutes ago, Albert2024 said: The Meissner effect is covered in Section II of the paper, and it's important to note that resolving the issues between QFT and GR isn't about the number of equations. Instead, it's about understanding key physical concepts. For example, de Broglie’s introduction of wave-particle duality or Pauli's conceptual explanation of spin didn’t rely on a flood of equations but rather on profound physical insights that shaped modern physics. Similarly, this paper is built on well-established experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and shows that the discrepancy between QFT and GR in calculating vacuum energy density stems from a misunderstanding of these underlying physical principles, not a lack of equations. The goal is to merge QFT and GR through clear conceptual understanding, rather than by adding more speculative postulates or mathematical complexity Read sections II and III that contains the equations that describes these SU(3) atoms. This is the version of the paper that contains all detailed equations https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4783308 Edited October 19 by Albert2024 1
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) You do understand the concept that SU(3) is a gauge group and not any individual particle or atom correct ? Is that not somehow relevant ? Each particle can use different gauge gauge groups including group combinations. Each particle drops out of thermal equilibrium at different times that depends on each particles cross section for the temperature where they will drop out. Which depends on the expansion rate as well. Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 9 minutes ago, Mordred said: You do understand the concept that SU(3) is a gauge group and not any individual particle or atom correct ? Is that not somehow relevant ? As far as I understand from the paper, SU(3) is confined within a scale of about 10^{−15} meters, which can be referred to as the "atom," "unit," "range," or any term that reflects the effective size of SU(3)'s action. When one divides the volume of the universe by the effective volume of one SU(3) "atom," one gets the precise number of these SU(3) units that matches exactly the value needed to resolve the cosmological constant problem, showing how the vacuum energy density is determined by the total number of these SU(3) "atoms" in the universe. On 10/17/2024 at 10:21 PM, Genady said: Do I understand correctly that this is a Speculation rather than a science of Astronomy and Cosmology? The paper is entirely founded on previously published research by the same author, which proposed that dark energy is a superconducting state of matter. This work was published in the prestigious journal JCAP https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) You might want to use a textbook instead of that paper. A quark for example cannot apply strictly SU(3) gauge to describe its interactions but requires the three gauge groups to describe its interactions SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) the quark generations are also involved all quarks do not drop out of thermal equilibrium at the same time nor does each member of each generation. When an atom drops out of thermal equilibrium one can deploy the Saha equations... Hydrogen drops out later than deuterium for example. Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 18 minutes ago, Mordred said: You might want to use a textbook instead of that paper. A quark for example cannot apply strictly SU(3) gauge to describe its interactions but requires the three gauge groups to describe its interactions SU(3), SU(2) and U(1) the quark generations are also involved all quarks do not drop out of thermal equilibrium at the same time nor does each member of each generation. When an atom drops out of thermal equilibrium one can deploy the Saha equations... Hydrogen drops out later than deuterium for example. Your points are valid for high-energy physics under the Standard Model; however, the paper's approach differs significantly. While it is true that quark interactions require the SU(3), SU(2), and U(1) gauge groups at high energies, the paper focuses on how these symmetries evolve as the universe cools. Specifically, SU(2) breaks at the electroweak scale, and U(1) is broken by the Meissner effect, leaving SU(3) as the dominant vacuum symmetry near zero Kelvin. This residual SU(3) symmetry forms the foundation for quantizing vacuum energy, which addresses the cosmological constant problem. The Saha equation, applicable to atomic species dropping out of thermal equilibrium, is not relevant in this context. Instead, the paper deals with the stability of vacuum energy at extremely low temperatures, relying on the third law of thermodynamics to maintain the unbroken SU(3) structure. Unlike thermal equilibrium processes described by the Saha equation, which are specific to high-temperature atomic ionization such as hydrogen and deuterium, the approach in the paper concerns quantum symmetry and vacuum stability at near-zero Kelvin. This offers a new perspective on the cosmological constant problem, focusing on vacuum properties rather than classical equilibrium models
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) Fine but that burden of proof is in your court. You need to mathematically prove your case and not rely on other questionable works. What you just described is not what is described by main stream physics hence why this thread is moved. You will need far more than just 10 or less formulas to prove your case . Have you for example factored in the weighted roots of the SU(3) group for its weighted probability currents ? Have you looked at the individual phase amplitudes concerning a particles cross section ? Have you done any calculations using the Hamiltons for each group ? You haven't even been able to describe yourself in mathematical detail what an SU(3) atom is to begin with so how can anyone determine any validity ?? The weighted roots of a group specifically detail the symmetries of said group. I still don't understand how the detail The universe started at a hot dense state escapes you it has been cooling down due to expansion ever since. If you do the conversion 10^(19) GeV will be extremely close to the Planck temperature at the opposite end of the temperature scale than that of a Bose Einstein condensate Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 10 minutes ago, Mordred said: Fine but that burden of proof is in your court. You need to mathematically prove your case and not rely on other questionable works. What you just described is not what is described by main stream physics hence why this thread is moved. You will need far more than just 10 or less formulas to prove your case . Have you for example factored in the weighted roots of the SU(3) group for its weighted probability currents ? Have you looked at the individual phase amplitudes concerning a particles cross section ? Have you done any calculations using the Hamiltons for each group ? You haven't even been able to describe yourself in mathematical detail what an SU(3) atom is to begin with so how can anyone determine any validity ?? After reading the paper several times to comprehend it, it is evident that the paper stands on a solid foundation of well-established principles, including symmetry breaking and the experimentally verified Meissner effect. The SU(3) gauge symmetry that dominates the vacuum at near-zero Kelvin is a direct result of these mechanisms. It is clear that the approach is not speculative but is instead rooted in robust theoretical and experimental frameworks that are well-documented in physics. Your criticism does not seem to fully engage with the underlying principles being applied, which are both logically consistent and empirically supported. Instead of vague insinuations about a lack of proof, it would be more constructive to acknowledge the established physics that forms the backbone of this work and engage with it in a detailed and substantive manner. The principles used here are not speculative or questionable; they are grounded in experimentally verified phenomena that have direct relevance to the questions at hand 1
Mordred Posted October 19 Posted October 19 (edited) Great you can start with calculating what temperature 10^(15) GeV is Given that 1 electronvolt=11600 Kelvin. Exactly what temperature do youvrequire for the Meisnner effect ? At what point in the early universe temperature evolution would meet that condition ? Edited October 19 by Mordred
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Posted October 19 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: Great you can start with calculating what temperature 10^(15) GeV is Given that 1 electronvolt=11600 Kelvin. I think I answered this above
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now