Mordred Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 (edited) No you haven't look at the temperature history of the early universe if it helps you can simply inverse the scale factor. At no point in our universes temperature history will you have anything close to producing the transition temperature for the Meissner effect. Edited October 19 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 19 Author Share Posted October 19 11 minutes ago, Mordred said: Exactly what temperature do youvrequire for the Meisnner effect ? At what point in the early universe temperature evolution would meet that condition ? Good question. The table in the paper presents this in detail, incorporating experimental bounds on photon mass from the Particle Data Group https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4783308 5 minutes ago, Mordred said: No you haven't look at the temperature history of the early universe if it helps you can simply inverse the scale factor. At no point in our universes temperature history will you have anything close to producing the transition temperature for the Meissner effect. Let me rephrase the answer again Your point about the temperature history of the early universe is valid when discussing high-energy epochs where the scale factor dictates temperature evolution. However, the Meissner effect discussed in the paper is not referring to a transition during these early hot stages but rather a low-temperature process occurring at present, well after the universe's thermal history had cooled. The current temperature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is around 2.7 Kelvin, which indicates that we are dealing with late-time cosmology, not the early universe. The Meissner effect is a well-known phenomenon that occurs at extremely low temperatures, similar to superconductivity in condensed matter physics, where U(1) symmetry breaks spontaneously. This is the context in which the paper applies the Meissner effect—explaining the structure of the vacuum at near-zero Kelvin. As the universe has expanded and cooled over billions of years, reaching this low-temperature state, only the SU(3) symmetry remains intact, while SU(2) and U(1) have broken. This residual SU(3) symmetry characterizes the vacuum energy of late cosmology, including dark energy, which is relevant at today’s extremely low temperatures, rather than the high-energy dynamics of the early universe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 (edited) Why are all your papers from the same author can you not provide a decent reference done by any other author ? Has it not occurred to you I don't trust anything written by that author as a valid reference ? Edited October 19 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 2 hours ago, Albert2024 said: 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 Which is a confirmation of the details of Meissner effect, not dark energy, or these proposed particles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 19 Share Posted October 19 (edited) From that last article "remains intact near zero Kelvin, forming the foundational atoms of vacuum energy". For your Meissner effect. So the answer when you convert the GeV to Kelvin for our entire universe history Has never occurred with regards to that papers SU(3) atom. At no point in our universe history has that process occurred as 2.73 Kelvin is still too hot. Edited October 19 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 1 hour ago, Mordred said: Why are all your papers from the same author can you not provide a decent reference done by any other author ? Has it not occurred to you I don't trust anything written by that author as a valid reference ? This author is a highly cited scientist, and I am referencing his work because he is the only one who has addressed and solved this problem using well-established physical principles, without resorting to speculative assumptions like multiverses, extra dimensions, or dark dimensions. Additionally, the paper I provided is published in *JCAP*, a highly prestigious journal. I feel your arguments against it might be more personal rather than based on objective reasoning. 1 hour ago, Mordred said: From that last article "remains intact near zero Kelvin, forming the foundational atoms of vacuum energy". For your Meissner effect. So the answer when you convert the GeV to Kelvin for our entire universe history Has never occurred with regards to that papers SU(3) atom. At no point in our universe history has that process occurred as 2.73 Kelvin is still too hot. A temperature of 2.7 K is sufficient for the superconducting state to occur, breaking U(1) symmetry and leaving SU(3) as the remaining symmetry in the vacuum. I'm not sure what makes this straightforward argument difficult to grasp. 1 hour ago, swansont said: Which is a confirmation of the details of Meissner effect, not dark energy, or these proposed particles. The Meissner effect confirms the breaking of U(1) symmetry and at the same time verifies that SU(3) remains intact, which is the central idea of the paper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 I'm not sure I'm understandung this correctly. Albert is claiming that U91) symmetry is broken at temperatures of the present universe, as evidenced by the Meissner Effect. It is my understanding that the Meissner Effect is the (nearly ) total expulsion of magnetic fields from a superconductor, leaving only thr 'electrical effect; a sort of symmetry break of electromagnetism into electrical and magnetic components. But, if I recall Noether's Theorem, the symmetry would be electric charge and current conservation, such that the symmetry is broken when charge is not conserved. But I may be wrong, as I don't have a significant grasp of group theory. Regardless, the contention is that the only remaining symmetry is SU(3), and this implies a 'minimum volume' which is approximately the size of a proton. Never mind that the proton is a composite particle, which itself has much smaller features. But here is the real stretch. The number of estimated 'proton volumes' in the (observable, which is constantly changing in size ) universe happens to be closely related in magnitude to the discrepancy between the 'estimated from theory' vacuum energy and the 'derived from observation' value. And on this vague relation Albert has proceeded to base a theory on. This seems, to me, a non-sensical relation, as it smacks of numerology. Is there any evidence that this 'minimum SU(3) volume' is related to the proton volume, and further related to the vacuum energy discrepancy ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 43 minutes ago, Albert2024 said: The Meissner effect confirms the breaking of U(1) symmetry and at the same time verifies that SU(3) remains intact, which is the central idea of the paper. Which is not experimental evidence of some new particle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 22 minutes ago, MigL said: I'm not sure I'm understandung this correctly. Albert is claiming that U91) symmetry is broken at temperatures of the present universe, as evidenced by the Meissner Effect. It is my understanding that the Meissner Effect is the (nearly ) total expulsion of magnetic fields from a superconductor, leaving only thr 'electrical effect; a sort of symmetry break of electromagnetism into electrical and magnetic components. But, if I recall Noether's Theorem, the symmetry would be electric charge and current conservation, such that the symmetry is broken when charge is not conserved. But I may be wrong, as I don't have a significant grasp of group theory. Regardless, the contention is that the only remaining symmetry is SU(3), and this implies a 'minimum volume' which is approximately the size of a proton. Never mind that the proton is a composite particle, which itself has much smaller features. But here is the real stretch. The number of estimated 'proton volumes' in the (observable, which is constantly changing in size ) universe happens to be closely related in magnitude to the discrepancy between the 'estimated from theory' vacuum energy and the 'derived from observation' value. And on this vague relation Albert has proceeded to base a theory on. This seems, to me, a non-sensical relation, as it smacks of numerology. Is there any evidence that this 'minimum SU(3) volume' is related to the proton volume, and further related to the vacuum energy discrepancy ? Dear MigL, Thank you for your comment and for engaging with the paper. I'd like to address your concerns and clarify the robustness of the arguments presented. The paper posits that U(1) symmetry is broken at present-day temperatures due to the Meissner effect—an experimentally verified phenomenon in superconductivity where magnetic fields are expelled, indicating the spontaneous breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry without violating charge conservation, as per Noether's theorem. Consequently, SU(3) emerges as the residual unbroken symmetry at near-zero Kelvin, effectively dominating the vacuum structure of the universe. Although the proton is a composite particle, it is the smallest stable unit where SU(3) interactions are fully realized due to the confinement property of Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD). By dividing the universe's total volume by the volume of a proton, the author estimates the number of these SU(3) units or "atoms" filling the cosmos, providing a quantitative link between the microscopic properties of SU(3) symmetry and the macroscopic vacuum energy density observed in cosmology. This approach is grounded in well-established principles of symmetry breaking, quantum field theory, and thermodynamics—not mere numerology. The third law of thermodynamics supports the stability and uniformity of the SU(3) vacuum structure as temperature approaches absolute zero. Extending the Meissner effect to cosmology, the paper suggests that U(1) symmetry breaking leads to a form of cosmic superconductivity, potentially decoupling dark energy from electromagnetic fields—consistent with observations. By considering SU(3) as the dominant residual symmetry operating within proton-sized volumes, the paper offers a physically motivated solution to the cosmological constant problem. 16 minutes ago, swansont said: Which is not experimental evidence of some new particle. Why is it necessary to assume a new particle when the problem can be solved using SU(3) symmetry? Why introduce additional complexities when a simpler solution might suffice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) Are right let's assume the Meissner effect is the cause of the cosmological constant. The cosmomogical constant became dominant roughly when the universe was 7 billion years old . Prior to the CMB Why do we not see any evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB which directly involves Compton scatterrings ? Or any evidence of any nearby charged plasma of superconductivity ? Let alone any evidence of Lambda having a spin statistics suitable for a charged field ? Mainstream physics treatments Lambda would have a spin statistics zero spin (0) specifically a scalar field with no associated vector field or spinor field. No one is arguing the Meissner effect isn't viable. It's your application on a universe scale that is the issue Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 6 minutes ago, Mordred said: Are right let's assume the Meissner effect is the cause of the cosmological constant. The cosmomogical constant became dominant roughly when the universe was 7 billion years old . Prior to the CMB Why do we not see any evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB which directly involves Compton scatterrings ? Dear Mordred, thank you for your this question. I'd be happy to clarify how the Meissner effect relates to the cosmological constant and why we might not see its evidence in the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), which involves processes like Compton scattering. Firstly, it's important to consider the timeline of the universe: the CMB was emitted approximately 380,000 years after the Big Bang during the recombination era when electrons and protons combined to form hydrogen, allowing photons to travel freely, whereas the cosmological constant (dark energy) became dominant much later, roughly 7 billion years after the Big Bang, leading to the accelerated expansion of the universe we observe today. The Meissner effect is a phenomenon observed in superconductors at extremely low temperatures, where magnetic fields are expelled due to the spontaneous breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry; in the context of the paper, this effect is extended to cosmology by proposing that a similar symmetry-breaking mechanism occurs in the vacuum at very low temperatures, contributing to the cosmological constant. We do not see evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB because the effect becomes relevant long after the CMB was emitted—the processes governing the CMB, such as Compton scattering and recombination events, and those related to the cosmological Meissner effect occur at different times and involve different physics. The Meissner effect's influence on the vacuum is uniform at cosmic scales, meaning it doesn't introduce anisotropies or fluctuations that would leave an imprint on the CMB's temperature or polarization patterns. Additionally, the energy scales relevant to the Meissner effect are vastly different from those at recombination; the CMB photons are relics from a hot, dense universe, while the Meissner effect operates under conditions of extremely low energy and temperature in the late universe. In essence, we do not see evidence of the Meissner effect in the CMB because it influences the accelerated expansion of the universe rather than the microwave background radiation itself, and its relevance emerges in the universe's low-temperature state much later than the era of CMB formation. I hope this clarifies your question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 This hypothesis predicts that cosmological constant grows as the scale factor a(t), doesn't it? Or, rather, as a cube of this factor? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 Just now, Genady said: This hypothesis predicts that cosmological constant grows as the scale factor a(t), doesn't it? The author presents two possibilities in his paper. 1. Proton Size Expands with the Universe: If the proton's size expands at the same rate as the universe, the cosmological constant would remain constant regardless of cosmic expansion. The proton's size would increase by very small value comparable to its actual size based on the Hubble parameter rate. 2. Proton Size Remains Constant: If the proton's size remains constant while the universe continues to expand, then the cosmological constant would decrease over time. Regarding the second possibility, it may resonate with recent announcements suggesting that the dark energy density is decreasing over time. (DESI) collaboration indicates that dark energy density could be decreasing over time. They announced that few month ago as far as I remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genady Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 Can you elaborate on the second possibility? When they divide the volume of the universe by the volume of proton, if the former increases, wouldn't the ratio increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 4 minutes ago, Genady said: Can you elaborate on the second possibility? When they divide the volume of the universe by the volume of proton, if the former increases, wouldn't the ratio increase? The author explains in his paper that as the ratio increases—meaning the number of SU(3) "atoms" grows—the calculation of the vacuum energy density requires dividing by this larger number of atoms to determine the correct vacuum energy density. Therefore, as the number of su(3) atoms increases, the overall vacuum energy density decreases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) I don't think you fully understand what I am asking if you can do what I am about to ask then you might have something. here is the U(1) Langragian Single Gauge field U(1) [latex]\mathcal{L}=\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}[/latex] [latex]F_{\mu\nu}=\partial_\nu A_\mu-\partial_\mu A_\nu[/latex] we can use the Meissner effect Langrangian given by equation 11 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07414 produce spin statistics zero to satisfy w=-1 via \[w=\frac{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2-V\dot{\theta}}{\frac{1}{2}\dot{\theta}^2+V\dot{\theta}}\] where w=-1 Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 5 minutes ago, Mordred said: I don't think you fully understand what I am asking if you can do what I am about to ask then you might have something. here is the U(1) Langragian Single Gauge field U(1) L=14FμνFμν Fμν=∂νAμ−∂μAν we can use the Meissner effect Langrangian given by equation 11 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.07414 produce spin statistics zero to satisfy w=-1 via w=12θ˙2−Vθ˙12θ˙2+Vθ˙ where w=-1 How this comment is even relevant to the discussion here ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) you claim to produce using the Meissner effect to explain the cosmological constant the last equation is the equation of state for Lambda how can you not see the relevancy if you knew what you were tallking about or had actually understood how it would apply to QFT ? would you like me to produce the spin zero statistics for spin zero in Langrangian form or have you done that already ? would you prefer to work from the SU(3) langrangian ? I can provide that as well or the SU(2) ? it is the Langrangian equations of motion for radiation or matter that is used to determine the effective equations of state for radiation and matter Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 17 minutes ago, Mordred said: you claim to produce using the Meissner effect to explain the cosmological constant the last equation is the equation of state for Lambda how can you not see the relevancy if you knew what you were tallking about or had actually understood how it would apply to QFT ? would you like me to produce the spin zero statistics for spin zero in Langrangian form or have you done that already ? would you prefer to work from the SU(3) langrangian ? I can provide that as well or the SU(2) ? it is the Langrangian equations of motion for radiation or matter that is used to determine the effective equations of state for radiation and matter The problem with your comment exists in a misunderstanding of the author's approach. The Meissner effect implies that U(1) symmetry has already been broken in the context of this theory. The author's work focuses on the residual unbroken **SU(3)** symmetry near zero Kelvin, where it governs the structure of the vacuum. Your focus on computations related to U(1) is misplaced and irrelevant to the author's solution, which is rooted in how SU(3) symmetry plays a central role in explaining the cosmological constant. By misapplying the framework to a symmetry that is no longer active in this context, you're ignoring the key aspect of the theory that addresses vacuum energy and its stability, rendering your critique irrelvant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) 59 minutes ago, Albert2024 said: Dear Mordred, The Meissner effect is a phenomenon observed in superconductors at extremely low temperatures, where magnetic fields are expelled due to the spontaneous breaking of U(1) gauge symmetry; in the context of the paper, this effect is extended to cosmology by proposing that a similar symmetry-breaking mechanism occurs in the vacuum at very low temperatures, contributing to the cosmological constant. so you can't do as I asked to explain how this statement is possible got it. I provided the U(1) gauge for you and you cannot take that and produce a spin zero Langrangian equation of motion Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 2 minutes ago, Mordred said: so you can't do as I asked to explain how this statement is possible got it. I provided the U(1) gauge for you and you cannot take that and produce a spin zero Langrangian equation of motion Did you even read the author's work? Your comment is completely off-base and irrelevant to the core of the theory being discussed. The focus here is on **SU(3)** symmetry, not U(1), which has already been broken in this framework. You're addressing computations for a symmetry that doesn't apply in this context, which shows a lack of understanding of the author's argument. Instead of engaging with the actual substance of the theory—how SU(3) symmetry near zero Kelvin explains the cosmological constant—you’re fixated on something that has no relevance to the solution being proposed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) I'm assuming your the author as your the one defending the paper. I am showing the factors the author never looked at in his paper. The gauge groups the author refers to involve the equations of motion for each group. those groups have scalar, vector and spinor field relations not included in his paper. That paper only has first order terms without any vectors involving nothing more than scalar quantities. Now you understand exactly why I do not accept any validity in that paper. It s poorly examined. Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 Just now, Mordred said: I'm assuming your the author as your the one defending the paper. I am showing the factors the author never looked at in his paper I defend the paper for reasons beyond the personal assumption you're making, which is not only irrelevant but also far from being objective. If you're going to make assumptions, consider the possibility that I, like many others, am frustrated with speculative theories in physics—such as multiverses, extra dimensions in 10, 11, or 12 dimensions—that divert physics from its core experimental foundation. This paper stands out because it offers a solution grounded in simple, experimentally verified principles, such as the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics. It’s a refreshing departure from speculative frameworks, bringing the focus back to well-established, testable physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted October 20 Share Posted October 20 (edited) ah now I understand here is a little secret a dimension is nothing more than an effective degree of freedom or independent variable or other mathematical object. It is not some alternate reality. take spacetime 4d { ct,x,y,z} each term is a dimension as each term can change value without any dependency on any other term. That is all a dimension is in physics. A dimension can also be strictly mathematical without any physical reality just as you can have strictly mathematical spaces such as phase space or momentum space. These are simply graphs fundamentally The entire standard model of particles via the Euler Langrangian is nothing more than the effective path integrals with probability statistics which unfortunately is necessary but that's a simple reality that the quantum regime has shown us Edited October 20 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert2024 Posted October 20 Author Share Posted October 20 40 minutes ago, Mordred said: I'm assuming your the author as your the one defending the paper. I am showing the factors the author never looked at in his paper. The gauge groups the author refers to involve the equations of motion for each group. those groups have scalar, vector and spinor field relations not included in his paper. That paper only has first order terms without any vectors involving nothing more than scalar quantities. Now you understand exactly why I do not accept any validity in that paper. It s poorly examined. Steven Weinberg, in his seminal work on the cosmological constant problem, emphasized that the discrepancy arises fundamentally at the **zero level**—a profound mismatch between quantum field theory predictions and cosmological observations. Your critique seems to overlook this crucial aspect. The author focuses on addressing this zero-level discrepancy by applying the Meissner effect and the unbroken **SU(3)** symmetry at near-zero Kelvin temperatures. The paper offers a physically grounded solution rooted in experimentally verified phenomena like the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics. Introducing additional scalar, vector, or spinor field relations, while relevant in broader gauge theories, is not essential for resolving the specific zero-level issue that Weinberg discussed. I encourage you to read Weinberg's original paper to gain a deeper understanding of why the cosmological constant problem fundamentally arises from zero-level discrepancies. This context may clarify why the author's approach is both valid and significant in addressing the cosmological constant problem without unnecessary complexities. 29 minutes ago, Mordred said: ah now I understand here is a little secret a dimension is nothing more than an effective degree of freedom or independent variable or other mathematical object. It is not some alternate reality. take spacetime 4d { ct,x,y,z} each term is a dimension as each term can change value without any dependency on any other term. That is all a dimension is in physics. A dimension can also be strictly mathematical without any physical reality just as you can have strictly mathematical spaces such as phase space or momentum space. These are simply graphs fundamentally The entire standard model of particles via the Euler Langrangian is nothing more than the effective path integrals with probability statistics which unfortunately is necessary but that's a simple reality that the quantum regime has shown us I understand your perspective, but it’s important to distinguish between mathematical constructs and physical reality. While dimensions in mathematics can indeed be treated as degrees of freedom or independent variables, physics demands that our theories not only be mathematically consistent but also empirically verifiable. Introducing extra dimensions or proposing the existence of 10^{500} universes without experimental evidence leads us into speculative territory that challenges the foundational principles of science—testability and falsifiability. As Wolfgang Pauli famously remarked, theories that are not testable are “not even wrong.” Embracing such ideas risks diverting physics from its empirical roots and transforming it into a field of unfounded speculation. The implications of accepting untestable theories are significant. Proposing an enormous number of universes not only lacks empirical support but also complicates our understanding of the cosmos without providing testable predictions. This shifts physics away from its core mission of describing and explaining the natural world based on evidence. The Standard Model of particle physics, built upon solid experimental results, does not require extra dimensions to explain fundamental particles and their interactions. By focusing on well-established, experimentally verified phenomena—such as the Meissner effect and the third law of thermodynamics—we ensure that theories remain connected to observable reality. These principles provide tangible mechanisms that can be tested and observed, reinforcing the integrity of physics as an empirical science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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