A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[Mordred]

I am more than aware of precisely how the vacuum catastrophe occurred I have also seen far far better examinations than anything presented here on a viable solution.

That paper isn't one of them. At no point have I lost sight of the goal.

 

[Albert2024]

7 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I am more than aware of precisely how the vacuum catastrophe occurred I have also seen far far better examinations than anything presented here on a viable solution.

That paper isn't one of them. At no point have I lost sight of the goal.

 

Ok

[Genady]

2 hours ago, Albert2024 said:

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. 

I see. Would you elaborate, why a density, which already represents a value divided by volume, is further divided by number of the "atoms" in the universe?

[JosephDavid]

The paper is foundational, intriguing, and well comprehended. Could this suggest that massless gluons are indeed strong candidates for explaining dark energy?

 

Edited October 20 by JosephDavid

[Albert2024]

5 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

The paper is foundational, intriguing, and well comprehended. Could this suggest that massless gluons are indeed strong candidates for explaining dark energy?

 

Thank you for your feedback! I'm glad you found the paper intriguing. The possibility that massless gluons could play a role in explaining dark energy is indeed a key point in the author's approach.  

16 minutes ago, Genady said:

I see. Would you elaborate, why a density, which already represents a value divided by volume, is further divided by number of the "atoms" in the universe?

In the context of the author's theory, if the vacuum were composed of just one main unit, we would indeed divide the total energy by the total volume of the universe to calculate the vacuum energy density. However, since the vacuum is theorized to consist of around 10^123 discrete SU(3) units (or "atoms"), we must take this number into account when calculating the correct density. This division by the number of units refines the calculation, allowing us to distribute the vacuum energy across these individual, stable components, resulting in the observed low value of the cosmological constant.

In statistical physics, similar ideas occur when we deal with discrete systems, such as gas particles in a container. For example, in the **ideal gas law**,  PV = Nk_B T , the total energy is divided by the number of gas particles  N  to calculate properties like pressure or temperature, rather than just considering the volume. The behavior of each particle contributes to the overall system properties.

Another example is in **Boltzmann statistics**, where the probability of a system being in a certain state is calculated by dividing the total energy across the number of microstates available. The partition function sums over these microstates, distributing the total energy accordingly, just as in the theory where the vacuum energy is distributed over a large number of discrete SU(3) units.

These examples from statistical physics parallel the author's approach by illustrating how dividing by the number of fundamental units or particles helps compute accurate densities and properties for large-scale systems, providing a more granular and precise understanding of the system's energy distribution.

[JosephDavid]

Does that mean the proton will never decay?

[Albert2024]

3 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

Does that mean the proton will never decay?

The third law of thermodynamics ensures that the proton will not decay, as it stabilizes the SU(3) symmetry of the strong force near absolute zero, preventing the breakdown of this structure. This also explains quark confinement—quarks remain bound within protons  because the SU(3) units cannot be broken or annihilated. The third law of thermodynamics thus guarantees both proton stability and quark confinement by preserving the SU(3) structure at low temperatures.

[JosephDavid]

Thank you very much.

[Albert2024]

Just now, JosephDavid said:

Thank you very much.

You are welcome

[Genady]

1 hour ago, Albert2024 said:

since the vacuum is theorized to consist of around 10^123 discrete SU(3) units (or "atoms"), we must take this number into account when calculating the correct density. This division by the number of units refines the calculation, allowing us to distribute the vacuum energy across these individual, stable components, resulting in the observed low value of the cosmological constant.

This division by number of "atoms" results in energy per "atom", while the observed low value of energy density is energy per volume. These two numbers have different units. How can they be compared?

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Albert2024 said:

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?

I don’t know, but you need independent evidence of these SU(3) atoms.

[Mordred]

35 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know, but you need independent evidence of these SU(3) atoms.

That's something I do not see within the article.

What is precisely an SU(3) atom ????

SU(3) being a gauge group would use the effective degrees of freedom that would require something akin to the Gell-Mann matrices 

Which by itself isn't enough to describe a proton particularly if one were to say apply the CKMS mass mixing matrix to the protons mass terms you require U(1), SU(2) as well as SU(3) for the relevant Higgs, Dirac and Yukawa couplings.

SU(3) wouldn't even provide the relevant details to apply Breit Wigner to the cross section and its the Breit Wigner that is used for resonant particles to determine the particles mean lifetime.

So try as I might I cannot even begin to visualize what a SU(3) atom would even behave like.

5 hours ago, Albert2024 said:

The third law of thermodynamics ensures that the proton will not decay, 

How so as a particles mean lifetime is described by Breit Wigner for its decay rate ?

Here

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1608.06485

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[Albert2024]

4 hours ago, Genady said:

This division by number of "atoms" results in energy per "atom", while the observed low value of energy density is energy per volume. These two numbers have different units. How can they be compared?

Dividing the total vacuum energy density  by the number of SU(3) "atoms" in the universe is a natural step because it incorporates the new information about the finite number of these units in the vacuum structure. This division adjusts the energy calculation to reflect the energy density per unit volume, which aligns with the observed low energy density of the vacuum. By recognizing that the vacuum is composed of a finite number of discrete SU(3) units rather than being a continuous one entity.

[Mordred]

The other problem that I see is that if one were to tally up the frequency modes and perform a frequency summation of the modes for  SU(3) gauge interactions and apply the formula that led to the vacuum catastrophe then one would invariably end up with a far higher orders of magnitude error margin than those contained in the article.

The article never did apply those formulas to any particular group in terms of its frequency modes

[Albert2024]

54 minutes ago, swansont said:

I don’t know, but you need independent evidence of these SU(3) atoms.

The article resolves the misunderstanding about the cosmological constant problem by offering a new perspective that considers the vacuum as composed of a finite number of SU(3) units, evidenced by the well-established size of the proton and. By using the proton's size as a fundamental unit, the author estimates the number of SU(3) units filling the universe, reconciling the large vacuum energy predicted by quantum field theory with the small cosmological constant observed in cosmology. This approach doesn't introduce new hypothetical entities but builds upon existing experimental evidence.

[Mordred]

It still doesn't provide the necessary details to do so. That's the point I have been trying to get across to you.

The quantum harmonic oscillator equations that the article contains only has the degrees of freedom akin to a spring in motion at each coordinate that is the 

\[E=\frac{\hbar\omega}{2}\]

That the quantum harmonic oscillator describes. That equation doesn't encapsulate the relevant details to be applied to an SU(3) atom it doesn't include any of the additional degrees of freedom that would be required to describe any quantum harmonic uncertainty for such an atom.

You would need to apply that equation to all the interactions via its relevant Greens functions under Fourier transformations.

Let's try a rudimentary explanation to proton involves numerous different fields. Everyone can agree to this.

Higgs fields (actually contains 4 fields)

Em fields

Strong force fields

Weak force fields

Now apply the above equation to each 

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[Genady]

30 minutes ago, Albert2024 said:

Dividing the total vacuum energy density  by the number of SU(3) "atoms" in the universe is a natural step because it incorporates the new information about the finite number of these units in the vacuum structure. This division adjusts the energy calculation to reflect the energy density per unit volume, which aligns with the observed low energy density of the vacuum. By recognizing that the vacuum is composed of a finite number of discrete SU(3) units rather than being a continuous one entity.

I'm sorry to say, but this does not answer my question. I rephrase. How is energy per "atom" converted to energy per volume?

Edited October 20 by Genady

[swansont]

19 minutes ago, Albert2024 said:

The article resolves the misunderstanding about the cosmological constant problem by offering a new perspective that considers the vacuum as composed of a finite number of SU(3) units, evidenced by the well-established size of the proton and. By using the proton's size as a fundamental unit, the author estimates the number of SU(3) units filling the universe, reconciling the large vacuum energy predicted by quantum field theory with the small cosmological constant observed in cosmology. This approach doesn't introduce new hypothetical entities but builds upon existing experimental evidence.

If they insist that this is the solution, then there needs to be independent experimental evidence. Otherwise it’s just numerology, as MigL pointed out.

[Albert2024]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

I'm sorry to say, but this does not answer my question. I rephrase. How does energy per "atom" is converted to energy per volume?

The paper identifies the vacuum energy density per unit volume for each atom, without altering the physical units, as the number of atoms is ultimately a dimensionless quantity.

5 minutes ago, swansont said:

If they insist that this is the solution, then there needs to be independent experimental evidence. Otherwise it’s just numerology, as MigL pointed out.

SU(3) has been experimentally confirmed to be effective only within the proton's size. What further experimental evidence would be needed beyond this?

[Mordred]

D

23 minutes ago, Albert2024 said:

 

SU(3) has been experimentally confirmed to be effective only within the proton's size. What further experimental evidence would be needed beyond this?

Really how so ? 

Do you have a professional peer review article (not the paper under discussion) showing this ?

Lmao for the record I really don't care how many negative rep points one throws my way when it comes to applying main stream physics to some paper or article.

The reputation system means absolutely nothing to me.

Edit: in point of detail that reputation system is easily abused beyond its intended purpose

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[Genady]

18 minutes ago, Albert2024 said:

The paper identifies the vacuum energy density per unit volume for each atom, without altering the physical units, as the number of atoms is ultimately a dimensionless quantity.

So, the paper indeed divides the energy per volume by the number of atoms in the universe, as I've suspected earlier. Here: 

Such calculation not only is not natural, but it does not make sense. It rather represents "numerology", as others have already suggested.

Edited October 20 by Genady

[Mordred]

3 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, the paper indeed divides the energy per volume by the number of atoms in the universe, as I've suspected earlier. Here: 

Such calculation not only is not natural, but it does not make sense. It rather represents "numerology", as others have already suggested.

Agreed on that 

[Albert2024]

6 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, the paper indeed divides the energy per volume by the number of atoms in the universe, as I've suspected earlier. Here: 

Such calculation not only is not natural, but it does not make sense. It rather represents "numerology", as others have already suggested.

It is not numerology. The division by 10^123 in Quantum Field Theory reflects a physical principle based on the experimental Meissner effect, which shows that the vacuum is composed of 10^123 SU(3) units rather than being a single entity. This adjustment to the QCD Lagrangian is intended to incorporate the granular structure of the vacuum into QFT, aligning with observed vacuum energy densities. This approach is grounded in experimental effects, like the Meissner effect, and aims to provide a more accurate model if it leads to predictions consistent with experimental data. Therefore, it represents a legitimate theoretical adjustment rather than arbitrary numerology.

[Mordred]

It is is numerology when it doesn't apply any boundary conditions without the relevant proof of how those boundary conditions are being applied.

Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles for the entirety of the SM model of particles.

That estimation is based of the number density of photons using the Bose-Einstein statistics at 10^{-43} seconds so the 10^{123} value would entail conservation of energy mass violation.

Lol keep it coming love the childishness ( little forewarning though one can lose their ability to use the reputation system.) Our forum has banned certain members in the past of their ability to use that system.)

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

36 minutes ago, Mordred said:

It is is numerology when it doesn't apply any boundary conditions without the relevant proof of how those boundary conditions are being applied.

Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles for the entirety of the SM model of particles.

That estimation is based of the number density of photons using the Bose-Einstein statistics at 10^{-43} seconds so the 10^{123} value would entail conservation of energy mass violation.

Lol keep it coming love the childishness ( little forewarning though one can lose their ability to use the reputation system.) Our forum has banned certain members in the past of their ability to use that system.)

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.