A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[Mordred]

No I'm not how one  calculates the number density of particles of a field involves two specific equations.

Bose-Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac- statistics.

If you take the effective degrees of freedom of for example photons you would apply the first equation. However if it's a fermion you apply the second equation.

That isnt numerology for the  above method this is something the article in question cannot do as it hasn't defined an SU(3) atom. 

The above method is the main stream method for any particle count estimation.

7 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

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. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_statistics#:~:text=In quantum statistics%2C Bose–Einstein,energy states at thermodynamic equilibrium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi–Dirac_statistics

 

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

10 minutes ago, Mordred said:

No I'm not how one  calculates the number density of particles of a field involves two specific equations.

Bose-Einstein statistics and the Fermi-Dirac- statistics.

If you take the effective degrees of freedom of for example photons you would apply the first equation. However if it's a fermion you apply the second equation.

That isnt numerology for the  above method this is something the article in question cannot do as it hasn't defined an SU(3) atom. 

The above method is the main stream method for any particle count estimation.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bose–Einstein_statistics#:~:text=In quantum statistics%2C Bose–Einstein,energy states at thermodynamic equilibrium.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fermi–Dirac_statistics

 

Yo, you still ain’t gettin’ it. Sure, you can throw around Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac stats all you want, but that’s basic particle counting. This SU(3) stuff? It’s on a whole different level, we’re talkin’ vacuum energy structure, not tallying up particles like photons or fermions. That 10^123 ain’t about how many particles are chillin’ in the universe—it’s about the energy packed in the vacuum. So you can keep goin’ on about mainstream methods, but that’s not what we’re dealin’ with here. You gotta step outta that particle count mindset and look at the bigger picture: the actual framework of the vacuum.

[Mordred]

So what your saying is throw away all mainstream physics to allow this paper to work is that it?

The point is that you apply all mainstream physics to any physics theory you don't randomly toss away the parts that don't agree with a paper.

[MigL]

Did some reading about the Meissner Effect, and will agree that U(1) symmetry is broken at low temperature, leaving SU(3) symmetry to keep things stable, although I do have a further question ( below ).

I am still not convinced about the fundamental size of the SU(3) building blocks being about the size of a proton, and would need some backing evidence.

I am not agreeable at all to the comparison between fundamental SU(3) units and the orders of magnitude discrepancy vacuum 'catastrophe'. And others have similar concerns.

If the fundamental SU(3) size remains constant ( so proton size prevents their decay ) then energy density drops as the universe expands. We are dealing with the observable universe here, are we not ?
I am left wondering where the transition to SU(3) only stability took place.
It would need to be fairly recent ( in cosmological scales ) as temperature and size would have kept U(1) symmetric and vacuum energy discrepancy even much larger.
The Meissner Effect seems to me, a local symmetry break, not a global one.
What evidence is there that U(1) symmetry is broken globally, to the extent of the observable universe ?

[Mordred]

I believe I may have found something that may prove useful in terms of the Meissner effect. It took considerable digging to find something applicable to the Meissner effect with regards to the different symmetry groups.

 https://sethna.lassp.cornell.edu/pubPDF/meissner.pdf

I still don't agree that it would resolve the cosmological constant problems for much the same reasons as you also noted.

I'm still digging around looking for decent articles to get more detail on the Meissner-Higgs effect the link above mentions most of the articles I've encountered are specifically condensed matter physics via Anderson-Higgs.

 

This one isn't bad in so far as it contains missing details not included in the OP article 

https://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0106070

It actually  addresses one of the questions I had asked earlier .

13 hours 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

 

Though it doesn't provide an effective equation of state the details in that last article can readily be used to determine an effective equation of state.

However the problem still remains how to apply the needed boundary conditions to an ill defined SU(3] atom ?

From last article 

"and the photon becomes massive"

I know I've seen this examination before if I recall we had a discussion a few years ago on a Hubble bubble article that involved a potential phase transition that has not occurred yet but is mathematically viable where the Higgs field gains couplings to photons.

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[Mordred]

May I suggest we examine the OP paper under two seperate categories. 

The old cosmological constant problem as per the vacuum catastrophe specifically why the error was so high for the calculated value.

As opposed to the new cosmological constant problem of why is the measured value so close to zero.

Doing this may help make better sense of the OP paper.

I should have time this evening and tomorrow to add some mathematical detail for each latter applying Higgs.

 

Edited October 20 by Mordred

[Mordred]

https://inspirehep.net/literature/2778290

OK I've been examining this article a bit closer trying to figure out how the volume element of the SU(3) atom the paper specifies  the SU(3) atom with  a range of 10^{15} meters. This is identical to the range of the strong force mediated by gluons. It doesn't include the EM interaction nor the weak force interactions associated with quarks. It also specifies this occurs at a threshold where no massless particles exist. 

However the problem I have with this is that the range of a force is determined by two factors. The mean lifetime of the mediator particle and the particles momentum term.

"an energy threshold below which no massless particle exists "

page 4 of above article.

So if  this threshold were somehow reached how can any atom  or nucleon continue to exist and how can any mediation of the standard model that occur involving massless particles.

this makes no sense to me every interaction we see today involving qluons or photons would no longer occur in the same manner as that would lead to conservation of mass energy violations of the baryon octet. 

the volume would also change and no longer be 10{-15} meters assuming its using gluons as they are somehow  stable with a mass term being stable then the range of the SU(3) atom assuming its describing gluons would end up being infinite.

If the photon were to acquire mass yet somehow remain stable you would end up with Lorentz invariance violations not compatible with GR itself.

from article relevant equations for the above in terms of  the photon symmetry break acquiring mass

equation 4

\[\chi=\bar{\psi}_e\psi_e\]

equation 5

\[\mathcal{L}_\chi=\frac{1}{2}(\partial_\mu \chi)^2-\mu^2\chi^2-\lambda \chi^4+e^2\chi^2A_\mu A^\mu\]

equation 6

\[\langle \chi\rangle=\sqrt{\frac{\mu^2}{2\omega}}\]

results in photon mass 

equation 7

\[m_\gamma=e\langle\chi\rangle \le 10^{-18} ev\] 

if this had occurred photons having mass would no longer travel  at c as no particle with mass can travel at c.

secondly should the photon acquire mass

\[\frac{1}{2}m_\gamma^2 A^\mu A_\mu\] 

then gauge symmetry is violated hence by gauge invariance it is forbidden and not be able to be a gauge theory under U(1)

That last part is covered in QED.

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

On 10/20/2024 at 10:24 AM, Mordred said:

So what your saying is throw away all mainstream physics to allow this paper to work is that it?

The point is that you apply all mainstream physics to any physics theory you don't randomly toss away the parts that don't agree with a paper.

Nah, bro, nobody’s saying ditch mainstream physics. What I’m sayin’ is, you gotta get that not everything fits into the same old particle count equations. Those equations you're bringin' up? They didn’t solve the problem and don’t give any real insight on the vacuum. This paper isn’t throwing away physics—it’s actually giving a fresh take. SU(3) vacuum structure is still legit physics, but it ain’t about counting particles like you keep mentioning. Mainstream physics is cool and all, but this approach the author’s introducing? It’s giving an original understanding of the vacuum that your standard methods just aren’t touching. Sometimes you gotta step outside the box to get the full picture.

[Mordred]

Well unfortunately in the case of the quantum harmonic oscillator I should be able to directly take the equivalent creation/annihilation operators used to describe the same mathematics describing the vacuum catastrophe in the article and directly calculate the number density of particles.

That's a detail that's in an introductory level QED textbook

The methodology used (volume ) is only has validity under the assumption of a fermion not its range of interaction which is the range of the strong nuclear force.

The method I mentioned preserves the energy/mass conservation budget.

Using strictly volume wouldn't 

If your interested in the above method let me know and I will be more than happy to post the method I just described here.

That's the part that makes question the article.

How can anyone understand the QED equation to show photon decoupling but know what I  just described. 

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

21 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Well unfortunately in the case of the quantum harmonic oscillator I should be able to directly take the equivalent creation/annihilation operators used to describe the same mathematics describing the vacuum catastrophe in the article and directly calculate the number density of particles.

That's a detail that's in an introductory level QED textbook

The methodology used (volume ) is only has validity under the assumption of a fermion not its range of interaction which is the range of the strong nuclear force.

The method I mentioned preserves the energy/mass conservation budget.

Using strictly volume wouldn't 

If your interested in the above method let me know and I will be more than happy to post the method I just described here.

That's the part that makes question the article.

How can anyone understand the QED equation to show photon decoupling but know what I  just described. 

Let’s not forget—your traditional methods and all that textbook stuff didn’t solve the cosmological constant problem. Those old-school approaches, including QED and particle counting, didn’t crack it. But this paper? It did. Period. By breaking U(1) symmetry and focusing on SU(3) stability, it takes a new original approach that actually explains the vacuum energy density. So while I get where you’re coming from with the QED basics, they’ve been around, and they haven’t gotten the job done. This paper brings something new to the table, and that’s why it stands out. Simple as that, man.

[Mordred]

As someone who is an accredited theoretical physicist I can tell you with absolute certainty no theory that doesn't apply those main stream physics will ever work..

That is the reality and I've seen ppl try for over 35 years its never worked out for them.

Nor would you be able to give me a single example where it has.

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

As someone who is an accredited theoretical physicist I can tell you with absolute certainty no theory that doesn't apply those main stream physics will ever work..

That is the reality and I've seen ppl try for over 35 years its never worked out for them.

Alright, I hear you, but lemme hit you with this: remember when the spin concept first came out? That wasn’t "traditional" either—didn’t even have a classical analogy, but it worked because it explained the observations, just like this paper does. It wasn’t about stickin' to the old ways; it was about solving the problem.

You’re talkin' like this paper throws out mainstream physics, but that’s not the case at all. I read the whole thing, and the author is using well-established principles—spontaneous symmetry breaking, the Meissner effect, and the third law of thermodynamics. These are real, solid physics ideas. There’s no wild leap into uncharted territory here, just a new take on how we look at the vacuum structure.

So, yeah, I get that you’ve seen people try things over the years that didn’t work, but this ain’t one of those cases. This is grounded in solid physics, just taking it in a direction that the old methods didn’t manage to crack. Sometimes it takes thinkin’ outside the box, but still using legit tools to get the job done.

[Mordred]

Spin was mathematically developed using known physics. All mainstream physics were developed using known physics. There is no magical eureka moment real physics is painstaking work applying known physics to any new theory.

One of the first lessons taught to me in my formal training is that if you cannot apply mainstream physics to a theory. Then the theory is wrong.

Feymann himself is commonly mentioned quoting that statement.

 

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Spin was mathematically developed using known physics. All mainstream physics were developed using known physics. There is no magical eureka moment real physics is painstaking work applying known physics to any new theory.

 

Yo, you’re actin’ like this dude is pullin' stuff outta nowhere, but he proved his take with solid math too. He’s not just throwin' ideas around—he’s got the numbers to back it up. I don’t even get why you’re pushin' back so hard when he’s using legit math and well-known physics. You keep sayin' “mainstream,” but the guy’s usin' spontaneous symmetry breakin’, the third law of thermodynamics—stuff that’s real as it gets in physics. He just flipped the perspective, kinda like when spin showed up with no classical analogy but still worked ‘cause the math held up. let’s not act like spin just slid in smooth from “known physics” without nobody blinkin’. That thing didn’t even have a classical homie, but it worked ‘cause it explained what was goin’ down. Same vibe with this paper—it’s breakin’ new ground, but it’s still keepin’ it real.

And seriously, just 'cause it’s new doesn’t mean it ain’t legit. Dude’s grindin' with math and established principles to crack a problem the old methods couldn’t touch. I don’t even get what part you’re missin’, but he’s got the proof, both with equations and real physics. So what’s the beef?

[Mordred]

I recognize every formula in that article. Every treatment is something done in other literature without exception.

Where the errors are isn't the math it's in his descriptives and how it attempts to apply them

Those formulas do not describe anything beyond what can be found in common textbooks.

 

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

I recognize every formula in that article. Every treatment is something done in other literature without exception.

Where the errors are isn't the math it's in his descriptives and how it attempts to apply them

 

Exactly, man! You’re sayin’ the math is solid, and when the dude applied it, he nailed the exact value that solved the cosmological constant problem—right down to the ridiculous 10^123 precision. How’s that a coincidence? It’s not. That’s the math doin’ its thing. You can’t say you know the formulas and then act like the solution doesn’t count when the numbers line up that perfectly. Bro, you’re wildin’. You’re straight-up contradicting yourself.  Come on, this ain’t just luck. When the numbers check out like that, it’s solid. You’re gettin’ me twisted over here, man, I’m laughin’ ‘cause you’re fightin’ against the facts you already know are right!

[Mordred]

Those mathematics do not describe an SU(3) atom. They do not describe the Meissner effect 

They do not describe what the theory is about.

None of the math is the authors own.

The only formula that belongs to the author is the division of his SU(3) atoms into the volume of the Observable universe.

 

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[TheVat]

Would humbly request our "bruh" consider dialing back the pseudo rapper talk, for purposes of reader comprehension.  

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

Exactly, man! You’re sayin’ the math is solid, and when the dude applied it, he nailed the exact value that solved the cosmological constant problem—right down to the ridiculous 10^123 precision. How’s that a coincidence? It’s not. That’s the math doin’ its thing. You can’t say you know the formulas and then act like the solution doesn’t count when the numbers line up that perfectly. Bro, you’re wildin’. You’re straight-up contradicting yourself.  Come on, this ain’t just luck. When the numbers check out like that, it’s solid. You’re gettin’ me twisted over here, man, I’m laughin’ ‘cause you’re fightin’ against the facts you already know are right!

This should easily be the most ignorant comment on these forums so far. 10¹²⁰ (ten to the one hundred and twenty something) is not a precisely calculated number (like the fine structure constant, or the electron g factor). It is the gross overcount that QFT gets when applying cutoff on the harmonic oscillators to the Planck scale, to roughly estimate the energy density of the vacuum. So it's not that 10¹²³ is the legit number for QFT vacuum energy density. This a grossly wrong number! And the thing to explain is not why Nature offers us this number. Rather, it is that the actual energy density of the vacuum is so low, instead of being this absurdly high number.

4 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Would humbly request our "bruh" consider dialing back the pseudo rapper talk, for purposes of reader comprehension.  

Ditto.

[JosephDavid]

6 minutes ago, joigus said:

This should easily be the most ignorant comment on these forums so far. 10¹²⁰ (ten to the one hundred and twenty something) is not a precisely calculated number (like the fine structure constant, or the electron g factor). It is the gross overcount that QFT gets when applying cutoff on the harmonic oscillators to the Planck scale, to roughly estimate the energy density of the vacuum. So it's not that 10¹²³ is the legit number for QFT vacuum energy density. This a grossly wrong number! And the thing to explain is not why Nature offers us this number. Rather, it is that the actual energy density of the vacuum is so low, instead of being this absurdly high number.

Ditto.

Alright, I see where you’re comin' from, but I think you’re missin' the core point of what’s bein' discussed. Nobody’s sayin' 10^123 is the QFT vacuum energy density. We all know QFT gives that absurdly high estimate when you cut off at the Planck scale. The point isn’t to defend that number, but to explain why the observed vacuum energy is so much lower than what QFT predicts. The paper talkin' about isn’t tryin' to justify the QFT number—it’s actually addressing the exact issue you're pointing out: why the vacuum energy is so low compared to that 10^123 overcount from QFT. So the whole goal is to fix the very problem you’re talkin' about, not reinforce it. 

[Mordred]

You don't divide the range of a particles influence for the number density or number of particles that is plain  wrong.

You can have an infinite number of bosons in the precise same space.

You can only have 1 fermion in the same state in a given space.

At any point in the article has the author given an energy mass value of an SU(3) atom ?

No it isn't there, so how can it possibly be used to calculate the energy density ?

[JosephDavid]

22 minutes ago, TheVat said:

Would humbly request our "bruh" consider dialing back the pseudo rapper talk, for purposes of reader comprehension.  

Gotcha, and I respect that. My way of talking just helps me express  more clearly, but I get that it might not work for everyone here. Apologies if it came off the wrong way.

[Mordred]

The problem with the article is the missing required details. The mathematics do not provide the needed details.

I have spent considerable time over the weekend trying to figure out the authors missing details via his references and they don't even fill in the blanks.

[JosephDavid]

29 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Those mathematics do not describe an SU(3) atom. They do not describe the Meissner effect Those equations I copied from article here do not even include the Higgs coupling to the photon.

They do not describe what the theory is about.

None of the math is the authors own.

The only formula that belongs to the author is the division of his SU(3) atoms into the volume of the Observable universe.

 

Exactly! You got the division twisted. The author ain’t dividing SU(3) atoms by the universe volume. he’s calculating it by dividing the universe volume by the SU(3) effective volume. Big difference. What the author’s really pushing is that dark energy is like a superconductor state of matter. All it needs is two composite electrons acting like a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry and leave SU(3) intact. That’s the real deal he’s talkin’ about.

[Mordred]

Doesn't matter the method is wrong you cannot maintain conservation of mass energy by dividing particle interaction volume into the universe.

There is no value given for how much each individual SU(3) has for its energy or mass. It simply doesn't work.

That should be obvious