A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[Genady]

35 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

The author ain’t dividing SU(3) atoms by the universe volume.

Actually, he is. Here is how:

Firstly, he is

 

35 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

dividing the universe volume by the SU(3) effective volume

i.e., he is calculating the ratio,

(universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume).

Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating,

(energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume).

Or, equivalently,

(energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume).

So, he is in fact 

35 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

dividing SU(3) atoms by the universe volume.

 

Edited October 21 by Genady

[studiot]

14 minutes ago, Genady said:

Actually, he is. Here is how:

Firstly, he is

 

i.e., he is calculating the ratio,

(universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume).

Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating,

(energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume).

Or, equivalently,

(energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume).

So, he is in fact 

 

Good point +1

 

Somewhere in the beginning of this saga superconductivity was invoked.

Yet Cooper Pairs were not mentioned.

I wonder why not ?

[JosephDavid]

4 minutes ago, Genady said:

Actually, he is. Here is how:

Firstly, he is

 

i.e., he is calculation the ratio, (universe volume)/(SU(3) effective volume).

Then, he is dividing the energy density by this ratio, i.e., he is calculating,

(energy density)/(universe volume)*(SU(3) effective volume).

Or, equivalently,

(energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume).

So, he is in fact 

 

The equation you derived  is 

(energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume).

So, you're saying SU(3) effective volume by universe volume is the same as SU(3) atoms by universe volume? The first is about comparing volumes, but the second is like dividing the number of these atoms over the universe volume. There's a clear difference in meaning there, right?

 

 

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

The equation you derived  is 

(energy density)*(SU(3) effective volume)/(universe volume).

So, you're saying SU(3) effective volume by universe volume is the same as SU(3) atoms by universe volume? The first is about comparing volumes, but the second is like dividing the number of these atoms over the universe volume. There's a clear difference in meaning there, right?

 

 

He is doing the former, not the latter.

[JosephDavid]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

He is doing the former, not the latter.

Exactly, that’s the point! He is doing the former, comparing volumes, not dividing the number of SU(3) atoms by the universe volume.

[Mordred]

Great how much energy does each SU(3) atom contain ?

How many SU(3) atoms will you need per cubic meter will you require to address  the energy value given by the Zero point energy calculation provided in the article ?.

 

Go ahead perform that calculation 

Or did we forget that is what article is supposed to be about in the first place ?

The total number of SU(3) atoms included the universe is irrelevant the article is about the energy density per volume.

41 minutes ago, studiot said:

Good point +1

 

Somewhere in the beginning of this saga superconductivity was invoked.

Yet Cooper Pairs were not mentioned.

I wonder why not ?

I assumed the methodology used Andersen Higgs type 2 superconductivity but when I went through the Langrangians in the article realized that wasn't even in the article.

I posted a link above few posts back with that theory but it's irrelevant as it's not included in the articles Langrangian equations.

On 10/20/2024 at 5:48 PM, Mordred said:

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

 

χ=ψ¯eψe

 

equation 5

 

Lχ=12(∂μχ)2−μ2χ2−λχ4+e2χ2AμAμ

 

equation 6

 

〈χ〉=μ22ω−−−√

 

results in photon mass 

equation 7

 

mγ=e〈χ〉≤10−18ev

 

 

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

 

12m2γAμAμ

 

 

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.

This is the Langrangian equations in the article I mentioned the relevant issues with gauge invariance in the quoted section.

This article details Anderson Higgs.

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

It was more in reply to Migls previous post question as to one possibility.

Edited October 21 by Mordred

[Mordred]

I withdraw my comment about the math being correct. The author slipped in the theoretical bound from particle data group.  It is the theoretical bound without photon coupling to Higgs.

 All he has done with his Lanqrangian equations of motion used do not include Higgs at all nothing they are QED only without Higgs....

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

Being the EM field adjoint and bispinor in that order respectively on the RHS.

The rest of his expressions cannot give couplings to photons as it is the photons mediating those fields above. Those photons would already be offshell as mediators. 

 

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[Sandeepkapo]

The idea presented in this paper brings us back to solid ground after more than 50 years of speculative theories filled with unclear assumptions that lack physical meaning or measurable evidence, such as the multiverse/extra dimensions. It’s like returning to the simplicity of nature’s truths. By proposing dark energy as a superconductor state of matter, the author solidifies an argument that has been hinted at in several prior works. For example, papers like the one in Phys. Rev. D ([10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042](https://journals.aps.org/prd/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevD.91.085042)) and the JCAP study ([DOI: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012)) have already explored the idea of dark energy behaving like a superconductor. Similarly, the works found on arXiv ([arXiv:1712.10311](https://arxiv.org/abs/1712.10311)) and in Int. J. Mod. Phys. D ([DOI: 10.1142/S0218271807011292](https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/abs/10.1142/S0218271807011292)) discuss this direction, suggesting that superconductivity might be a key to understanding dark energy. What makes this paper interesting is its reliance on symmetry, which is the most powerful tools in physics. By applying symmetry breaking, particularly U(1) breaking while leaving SU(3) in an unbreakable state, the paper provides a clear, measurable framework that cuts through speculative ideas like the multiverse and focuses on well-established, testable physics. This makes the argument more robust and grounded, offering a meaningful explanation of dark energy that fits within the broader context of known physical laws.

[MJ kihara]

7 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

but this approach the author’s introducing? It’s giving an original understanding of the vacuum

 

6 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

And seriously, just 'cause it’s new

When was the paper published..mmmm....

[Sandeepkapo]

I explored further and found experimental work on the possibility of detection of dark energy within superconductors, such as:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2009/931920

And this one in PRL
  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151802

It seems that the idea is also rooted in these recent experiments. Very interesting! 

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, Sandeepkapo said:

I explored further and found experimental work on the possibility of detection of dark energy within superconductors, such as:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1155/2009/931920

And this one in PRL
  https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.151802

It seems that the idea is also rooted in these recent experiments. Very interesting! 

 

The issue with the paper isn't the concept behind the paper. I don't actually don't have an issue with the concept.

The problem with the paper is that it doesn't show what it describes in the mathematics of the paper to give any means of testability. It has numerous areas where the paper makes little to no sense by its ommisions.

For example if the paper had used something like  Anderson-Higgs to U(1] symmetry break for class 2 superconductivity and had actually defined the SU(3) atom as something more concrete than simply providing the range of the nuclear force.

Then I would be all for the idea it's not a terrible idea that's not the issue I have. The problem is as it's written it's largely unusable.

To be honest in many I hope the author can develop a better written paper with a more accurate treatment.

Unfortunately knowing what I do on the physics involved the best I can give is that the concept needs improvement in its development.

That's just me being honest of my opinion on closer inspection of the paper.

In many ways the concept has similarities with numerous Higgs as the Cosmological constant papers the unused field of the Higgs mechanism giving rise to the cosmological term.

Which would closely follow the concepts of the paper.

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Examples here 

Higg's inflation possible dark energy

http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.3738
http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.3755
http://arxiv.org/abs/1006.2801

Any of these papers are usable they have the mathematics behind the Higgs as the cosmological constant 

Had the paper in the OP been of similar level I would be all for the concept

[Mordred]

There is a detail I need to reiterate. The paper requires a symmetry break that has not occurred even though every gauge group involved already has had a symmetry break event including U(1) as well as SU(3),the SU(2) symmetry break is when the W and Z bosons acquired mass.

U(1) symmetry breaking is when electrons gained mass leaving photons massless. The SU(3) symmetry break quarks gained mass.

This paper needs another symmetry break of U(1) to make photons massive. It conjectures this somewhere near absolute zero. 

 

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[MigL]

So, just to clarify ...
( this thread has moved fast )
Is the author's assertion that, if we do the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, but, instead of using Planck scale cut-off, we instead use 'SU(3) atom' scale cut-off we would arrive at the actual vacuum energy, and not the inflated ( by 123 orders of magnitude ) value given by the Planck scale cut-off ?

I do still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale.

Edited October 22 by MigL

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

So, just to clarify ...
( this thread has moved fast )
Is the author's assertion that, if we do the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, but, instead of using Planck scale cut-off, we instead use 'SU(3) atom' scale cut-off we would arrive at the actual vacuum energy, and not the inflated ( by 123 orders of magnitude ) value given by the Planck scale cut-off ?

I do still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale.

That was where I was thinking it may be a  more accurate solution for the new  cosmological problem as opposed to the old cosmological problem 

Weinberg has an article where he looked at that with regards to the anthropic models he used to push.

Peebles also has a relevant paper distinguishing between the two.

The problem is the OP has both though only describes both conditions having the relevant mathematics for the former which I had a different example on top of page one.

The new Cosmological problem is why is the value so close to zero.

The old problem was as you described. So your guess is as good as mine on that as I honestly do not see how the OP could possibly think the SU,(3) atoms could resolve either without including an energy mass term done using the method as my example on page 1 .

The problem is  there are 8 gluon fields so if you run calculations and apply over all 8 gluon fields for the 10^-15 meter value you would end up with even higher numbers than both problems the gluon mediation range is the effective range of 10^-15 meters. The reason for 8 gluon fields is the color mediation between quark combinations

Edited October 22 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

Those defending this paper should tell us why the author is so obsessed with referring to 'vacuum atom' while it's clear that, is relating SU(3) symmetry with scale i.e scaling the the universe using SU(3) symmetry.

On page 16 the author is talking of sentience and self replication....from his many references has he quoted every bit of sources and inspiration.

Its a wonderful thing from the arguments how the figures are matching...relating nucleon size to the whole of universe,however,,the explanation is lacking when it comes to issues concerning dark energy and given the fact the universe continuous expansion beyond observable universe.

[Sandeepkapo]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:29 AM, Mordred said:

The issue with the paper isn't the concept behind the paper. I don't actually don't have an issue with the concept.

The problem with the paper is that it doesn't show what it describes in the mathematics of the paper to give any means of testability. It has numerous areas where the paper makes little to no sense by its ommisions.

For example if the paper had used something like  Anderson-Higgs to U(1] symmetry break for class 2 superconductivity and had actually defined the SU(3) atom as something more concrete than simply providing the range of the nuclear force.

Then I would be all for the idea it's not a terrible idea that's not the issue I have. The problem is as it's written it's largely unusable.

To be honest in many I hope the author can develop a better written paper with a more accurate treatment.

Unfortunately knowing what I do on the physics involved the best I can give is that the concept needs improvement in its development.

That's just me being honest of my opinion on closer inspection of the paper.

In many ways the concept has similarities with numerous Higgs as the Cosmological constant papers the unused field of the Higgs mechanism giving rise to the cosmological term.

Which would closely follow the concepts of the paper.

It is commendable that you recognize the legitimacy of the concept, for that is indeed the cornerstone of the paper. The derivation of SU(3) vacuum atoms based on the proposed framework is a logical consequence, and we must remember that mathematics, while indispensable, is merely the language we use to articulate these ideas, what truly matters is the underlying concept. Upon closer inspection of the paper, it becomes clear that the author employs two composite electrons as a scalar field to break U(1) symmetry, which is entirely consistent with spontaneous symmetry breaking as it is applied in condensed matter physics. This approach is far from unconventional; it aligns with established methods, merely adapted to address a novel issue. While you may have sought a more concrete definition of the SU(3) atoms, considering the effective range of the nuclear force is, in this context, both reasonable and appropriate. To describe the paper as “unusable” strikes me as an overstatement, given that the physics it presents is sound and the theoretical foundation well established. Certainly, there is always room for further development, particularly in the mathematical details, where i find that he is arguing that these su(3) vacuum atoms implies a quantum nature of the spacetime.

19 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Those defending this paper should tell us why the author is so obsessed with referring to 'vacuum atom' while it's clear that, is relating SU(3) symmetry with scale i.e scaling the the universe using SU(3) symmetry.

On page 16 the author is talking of sentience and self replication....from his many references has he quoted every bit of sources and inspiration.

Its a wonderful thing from the arguments how the figures are matching...relating nucleon size to the whole of universe,however,,the explanation is lacking when it comes to issues concerning dark energy and given the fact the universe continuous expansion beyond observable universe.

It seems there might be some misunderstanding regarding the author's use of terms and concepts. While I'm not defending the paper, I can appreciate the logical framework it presents. The term "vacuum atom" is employed as a conceptual tool to describe the quantization of space at the scale of SU(3) symmetry. The number of these su(3) vacuum atoms is derived from dividing universe volume by proton volume. This approach isn't merely about scaling the universe using SU(3); it's about relating these symmetries to the very structure of the vacuum because su(3) remains unbreakable. Additionally, the paper suggests that the expansion of the universe can be understood through the Meissner effect, that is similar to the expulsion of magnetic fields in superconductors. This idea was first published by the same author in JCAP as he explained in the introduction of the paper [https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1475-7516/2024/08/012 ]. By drawing parallels between cosmic expansion and the Meissner effect, the author offers a novel perspective that could open new avenues for research, potentially using condensed matter techniques to investigate cosmological phenomena. In essence, the paper lays down a logical foundation based on established physics principles, offering fresh insights into complex cosmological issues.

[Mordred]

When a physicist looks at a paper he wants to be able to employ the mathematics to apply testability with known physics..

I literally in 100 percent all honesty could never ever use this paper as a reference or in any practical application it's as simple as that.

If one has to sit there and make random guesses as to what the author is describing that doesn't help. A reader should never have to that to begin with 

I could take for example the simple equation for ZPE  and upon integration get infinite energy in return and that is the same equation used in the article.

There is no renormalization term included. The paper does not even mention the renormalized Hamilton let alone use the formula with the Pauli Villars regularization 

any calculation performed using gluon fields will give higher energy density for the volume given. It must with no choice as that region contains other fields.

There is no getting around that.

Furthermore There is a HUGE difference between a local condescend matter state than a global vacuum. So any comparison requires far better examination than what the paper offers.

It is literally provable that the conditions required by the article HAS NOT OCCURED  I cannot stress that enough the paper requires photons to have mass and that same paper just threw in the particle data group constraint on photon mass without doing a single calculation.

TRY actually studying the difficulties in achieving a Bose-Einstein or Fermi-Dirac condensate state

then compare what happens in a nucleon nucleon interaction As well as do the conversions from

eV to Kelvin

go ahead try and figure out how the model works when any individual particle has a corresponding temperature conversion greater than close to absolute zero The author never specified how close so lets say 1 kelvin  or less.

go ahead prove me wrong but don't forget to include the particles momentum term pick any including its momentum

example formula for quark quark interaction ground state of a bound system.

\[E(r)=2m-\frac{\alpha_s}{r^2_o}+br+\frac{p^2}{m}\]

where m is the mass p the momentum the radius of the ground state is

\[\frac{2}{mr^3_o}=\frac{\alpha_s}{r^2_o}+b\]

here is a table for you

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Particles/quark.html

apply any quark combination in that table then do the conversion with the eV to kelvin conversion

11606 Kelvin per eV.

now tell me how the model works ?

 

Edited October 23 by Mordred

[Sandeepkapo]

On 10/22/2024 at 1:21 PM, MigL said:

So, just to clarify ...
( this thread has moved fast )
Is the author's assertion that, if we do the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, but, instead of using Planck scale cut-off, we instead use 'SU(3) atom' scale cut-off we would arrive at the actual vacuum energy, and not the inflated ( by 123 orders of magnitude ) value given by the Planck scale cut-off ?

I do still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale.

You've got the gist of what the author's getting at, but let me clarify a bit. The author is still using the Planck scale as the cutoff in the harmonic oscillator calculation for vacuum energy, that's standard in quantum field theory. But here's where things get interesting: instead of accepting that enormous vacuum energy density we get from QFT with this cutoff (you know, the one that's off by about 123 orders of magnitude from what we observe), the author proposes a new way to look at it.

He suggests that the vacuum energy isn't just uniformly spread out but is effectively distributed over a huge number of "SU(3) vacuum atoms." Now, these aren't atoms like you find on the periodic table. They're units associated with the unbroken SU(3) symmetry of the strong nuclear force. To figure out how many of these SU(3) atoms there are, he divides the total volume of the universe by the volume of a proton, since protons are governed by SU(3) symmetry.

By thinking of the vacuum energy as spread out over all these SU(3) atoms, the effective vacuum energy density comes way down. This redistribution brings the theoretical prediction precisely equal to the observed value, tackling that massive discrepancy without changing the Planck scale cutoff itself.

Now, you mentioned you still question the validity of this SU(3) atom scale, and that's a reasonable concern. The author is basing this scale on the properties of the strong nuclear force and the unbroken SU(3) symmetry, arguing that this scale might be more relevant for vacuum energy considerations. It's a departure from the usual methods, sure, but it offers a fresh perspective on the cosmological constant problem that might be worth exploring further.

In essence, the author isn't throwing out the Planck scale but is reinterpreting how the vacuum energy calculated with it can be reconciled with what we actually observe, by considering the structure of the vacuum at the scale of the strong force. It's an interesting idea that challenges us to think differently about a long-standing problem.

[Mordred]

Yes I am fully aware of that however he is leaving the SU(3) gauge untouched. That calculation is a two quark to quark interaction which applies to the SU(3) gauge.

How do you maintain 1 kelvin and leave the momentum terms untouched for the SU(3) gauge you can literally remove every single other interaction and run those calculations without any other Field or gauge including Higgs you can keep the particles completely massless and you would still be above 1 kelvin with preserving the SU(3) gauge interactions momentum terms.

He literally specifies that in his opening paragraphs NO particles without mass. except SU(3)

so tell me how do you maintain less than 1 kelvin and preserve SU(3) momentum terms ?

particularly since his calculated number of SU(3) atoms exceed to particle count estimation for the Observable universe using the corresponding CMB temperature to number of photons relation via Bose-Einstein statistics. Which over the volume of the Observable universe would correspond to 10^90 photons. That calculation is prior to electroweak symmetry breaking where every particle is massless and in thermal equilibrium so indistinct from one another.

let me know when you can answer that and tell me again how the model has validity.

lmao for the record if you take the critical density formula and calculate the energy mass density  the value will equate to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter. That's at 2.73 Kelvin

Does that make it clear precisely why I stated the article is unusable in its present form ?

I would certainly hope so

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[Sandeepkapo]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

Yes I am fully aware of that however he is leaving the SU(3) gauge untouched. That calculation is a two quark to quark interaction which applies to the SU(3) gauge.

How do you maintain 1 kelvin and leave the momentum terms untouched for the SU(3) gauge you can literally remove every single other interaction and run those calculations without any other Field or gauge including Higgs you can keep the particles completely massless and you would still be above 1 kelvin with preserving the SU(3) gauge interactions momentum terms.

He literally specifies that in his opening paragraphs NO particles without mass. except SU(3)

so tell me how do you maintain less than 1 kelvin and preserve SU(3) momentum terms ?

particularly since his calculated number of SU(3) atoms exceed to particle count estimation for the Observable universe using the corresponding CMB temperature to number of photons relation via Bose-Einstein statistics. Which over the volume of the Observable universe would correspond to 10^90 photons. That calculation is prior to electroweak symmetry breaking where every particle is massless and in thermal equilibrium so indistinct from one another.

let me know when you can answer that and tell me again how the model has validity.

lmao for the record if you take the critical density formula and calculate the energy mass density  the value will equate to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter. That's at 2.73 Kelvin

Does that make it clear precisely why I stated the article is unusable in its present form ?

I would certainly hope so

Let's try to clear up some of the confusion here.

First off, the SU(3) gauge symmetry you're talking about is related to the strong nuclear force—the interactions between quarks inside protons and neutrons. This symmetry remains unbroken, even at temperatures close to absolute zero. The key point is that the strong force operates at energy scales much higher than what we deal with in thermal physics at low temperatures.

Now, you're asking how we can maintain temperatures below 1 Kelvin and still have the SU(3) momentum terms untouched. The thing is, temperature is a measure of the average kinetic energy of particles, but the strong interactions governed by SU(3) are internal to nucleons (protons and neutrons) and aren't significantly affected by such low external temperatures. The quarks inside protons and neutrons are bound together so tightly that the thermal energy at 1 Kelvin is negligible in comparison.

For example, consider superconductors, which operate at very low temperatures. Even in materials cooled to fractions of a Kelvin, the protons and neutrons in their nuclei are still there, doing their thing, and the SU(3) symmetry is still at play. The electrons become superconducting, but the nucleons remain unaffected in terms of their strong interactions.

Liquid helium is another good example. When helium is cooled below 2.17 Kelvin, it becomes a superfluid with fascinating quantum properties. Yet, despite this extreme cooling, the protons and neutrons in helium atoms continue to interact via the strong force as they always do. The SU(3) symmetry doesn't disappear or change because of the low temperature.

 

Think of it this way: it’s like trying to alter the course of a speeding bullet by blowing on it. No matter how hard you blow, the bullet doesn’t notice. Similarly, the strong force doesn’t “feel” the low-temperature environment because its energy scale is so much higher.
 

 

So, maintaining a system at less than 1 Kelvin doesn't interfere with SU(3) momentum terms because those interactions are internal and at much higher energy scales than thermal energies. The strong force is about a million times stronger than electromagnetic interactions, and thermal fluctuations at such low temperatures are too feeble to impact it.

Regarding your concern about the number of SU(3) "vacuum atoms" exceeding the particle count in the observable universe: these "vacuum atoms" are a conceptual tool used to model the vacuum energy density. Comparing their number directly to the number of CMB photons isn't quite the right approach. You compare two different things!

The model proposes that the vacuum can be thought of as being composed of these SU(3) vacuum units, and by doing so, it attempts to address the cosmological constant problem. By considering the vacuum at the scale of the strong force, the model aims to redistribute the vacuum energy in a way that makes sense with observations. Photons counts belong to different kind of force that already broken by Meissner effect. When you mention the critical density equating to roughly 5 protons per cubic meter at 2.73 Kelvin, you're talking about the average density of normal matter in the universe. The cosmological constant problem is about vacuum energy, which is a different aspect altogether.

So, the model doesn't conflict with the observed matter density or the properties of the cosmic microwave background. It's offering a new way to think about how vacuum energy arises from fundamental symmetries that remain unbroken, like SU(3), and how this could solve a long-standing puzzle in physics.

Hope that helps clear things up!

[Mordred]

SU(3) is the color and flavor group \(SU(2)+\otimes U(1) is the EM gauge U(1) doesn't fully describe the EM field

Try a little better than that 

I pointed out that very problem with regards to those gauge groups and not atoms A long time ago in this very thread.

That's one of the very reasons the articles SU(3) atoms makes  absolutely no sense. 

That's been pointed out too many times to bother counting

Why do you think my example for quarks was used go ahead do those calculations using gluons mediating the strong force between those same two quarks.

Though I recommend you use Feycalc to sum the amplitudes 

What is an Su(3) atom is it just a gluon field field which one of the 8 possible 8 fields interacting the color combinations?

A gauge group does not exist on its own its a flipping mathematical treatment 

There isn't any single reader that can answer the question 

What is an SU(3) atom...

Both gluons and photons have the identical degrees of freedom so the calculation under Bose-Einstein is identical. It is the degrees of freedom used for the chemical reaction term under field treatment application when you apply that formula....

I already mentioned that the calculations above you could apply to strictly massless particles including gluons and you will still have an issue.

It's the momentum terms that's the issue..the paper preserves the momentum terms for the SU(3) interaction which is quite distinct from the harmonic oscillator.

It has greater degrees of freedom in its polarities  the harmonic oscillator is an application of Hookes equations for a spring at each coordinate that is why if you don't renormalize the integrals will give infinite energy if applied at every infinitisimal.

That is the very reason why we have a renormalized Hamilton in the first place. You don't sum it at every infinitisimal 

Do you want a decent methodology for harmonic oscillators see section 3.4.5

Advanced Quantum theory.

https://uwaterloo.ca/physics-of-information-lab/sites/default/files/uploads/documents/aqm_lecture_notes_79.pdf

That should make it clear that how modern physics handles harmonic oscillators Have gone beyond the formula used in the article 

The equation of motion in the article Is the harmonic oscillator for a diatomic molecule.

Had the author applied those in superconductivity in regards  to the harmonic oscillator and applied those equations  it  would have made a whole lot more sense in terms of condensed matter physics 

Then it would be more likely  useful.

I already mentioned Anderson Higgs treatments which applies to Higgs field superconductivity relations...

There are  decent articles on that topic 

But as I stated I cannot see any methodology contained in the authors paper that makes it useful as it is written too many ommisions and in some cases wrong methodology.

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Here is a simpler breakdown using operators ie QM or QFT which would have been far easier to apply symmetry breaking with regards to the paper

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://faculty.pku.edu.cn/_resources/group1/M00/00/0D/cxv0BF5mDfKAOPDbACEBbOQBol4139.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj-jdiwhaaJAxWvJTQIHZQ3C58QFnoECDYQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0bF6zGAJhSK_UcqzuzVZ4o

 

There is a reason why the vacuum catastrophe is also called the EM field ultraviolet  catastrophe the problem is directly related to how it was renormalized...

Here is a quick breakdown of the method I would have liked the author to have applied .

Bose Einstein QFT format.

\[|\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_1})\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k_2})|0\rangle\]

\[\Rightarrow |\vec{k_1}\vec{k_2}\rangle= |\vec{k_2}\vec{k_1}\rangle\]

number operator

\[\hat{N}=\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}\vec{k})\]

Hamilton operator

\[\hat{H}=\int d^3k\omega_k[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\]

momentum of field

\[\hat{P}=\int d^3k\vec{k}[\hat{N}(\vec{k})+\frac{1}{2}]\]

renormlized Hamilton

\[\hat{H_r}=\int d^3 k\omega_k\hat{a}^\dagger(\vec{k})\hat{a}(\vec{k})\]

Now for the full SU(3) Langrangian

\[\mathcal{L}=\bar{\psi}^fi\gamma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi^f_0\bar{\psi}^f\psi^f+g_o\bar{\psi}^f\gamma^\mu t_a\psi^f-\frac{1}{4}Fa_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}_a\]

where 

\[F^{\mu\nu}_a=\partial^\nu A^\nu_a-\partial^\nu A^\nu_a+g_oF_{abc} A^\mu_bA\nu_c\]

where a=(1,2.....8) for the gluon fields

=26 fields=6 flavors+3 colors+8 gauge bosons gives 7 parameters+1 coupling

There is \(SU(3)_c\)

notice that this also applies to the weak force with 6 flavors and the 8 gauge bosons for the strong force ? that's the full QCD langrangian the SU(3)  langrangian but that still doesn't include the Higgs couplings?

So once again I ask what the bugger is an SU(3) atom as the only Langragian the author included was the QED langrangian.

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[Mordred]

 

5 hours ago, Sandeepkapo said:

The cosmological constant problem is about vacuum energy, which is a different aspect altogether.

 

The article should be more clear on that as it applies its theory on a cosmological scale (global) particularly with the manner it tried relate volume to its SU(3) atoms and its Higgs references. If you ever examined Higgs as Cosmological constant papers you would understand where I'm coming from there.

example here

https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/eda33736-53b7-4db8-a1de-4fbe3871e4fa/content

the equation of state it gives provides the same equation of state for Lambda w=-1

In that regards the VeV itself isn't actually the vacuum energy density The VeV is an expectation operator.

Thsi is where I myself rather disagree with the method of calculating the Higgs energy density its typically done through the critical density formula hence I spent a good part of 10 years trying to narrow down a better method.

5 hours ago, Sandeepkapo said:

Photons counts belong to different kind of force that already broken by Meissner effect. 

 

have you read my comments about breaking gauge invariance and Lorentz invariance in this regard ?

lets put it simply what is mediating the superconducting fields ? under EM its the mediator offshell photons.

Now what occurs if you were to give mass to those photons upon mediation ?

do You not see the problem with regards to Lorentz invariance ?

The Higgs field doesn't give mass to the photons its excluded nor does it give mass to gluons its not in the known Higgs cross sections. A little FYI those cross sections also determines the VeV vacuum expectation OPERATOR. Given by for example the cross section with the W boson. Any particle it interacts with would do though.

\[v=\sqrt{\sqrt{2}G^0_F}\]

Higgs cross sections partial width's

first one is the cross section with applicable fermions

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow f\bar{f})=\frac{G_Fm_f^2m_HN_c}{4\pi \sqrt{2}}(1-4m^2_f/m^2_H)^{3/2}\]

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow W^+ W^-)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_W}{32\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_w+3a_W^2)\]

\[\Gamma(H\rightarrow ZZ)=\frac{GF M^3_H\beta_z}{64\pi\sqrt{2}}(4-4a_Z+3a_Z^2)\]

I have never encountered any cross section for Higgs and photons Meissner effect treatment or otherwise. So if you happen to have a professional peer review article showing one I would love to see it. As that would be useful in my personal line of research.

The above cross sections are what's applied in electroweak symmetry breaking 

 

5 hours ago, Sandeepkapo said:

Let's try to clear up some of the confusion here.

First off, the SU(3) gauge symmetry you're talking about is related to the strong nuclear force—the interactions between quarks inside protons and neutrons. This symmetry remains unbroken, even at temperatures close to absolute zero. The key point is that the strong force operates at energy scales much higher than what we deal with in thermal physics at low temperatures.

 

agreed on this detail I understood that from the start. I have no problem with being some Localized and strictly condensed matter physics treatment its how its applying on the cosmological scale that needs addressing or rather what the paper implies....

It still needs work though so I'm honestly hoping there is some improvements made there was some improvements particularly with renormalization which can be applied hence the QM/QFT above via creation/annihilation operators method above as its particularly useful.

 

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Detail I forgot above one of the reasons I chose two quarks was to see if you would make the connection to meson condensates. However apparently that was missed.

Those Cooper Pairs previously mentioned by @studiot for example.

https://www.mdpi.com/2571-712X/2/3/25

Ie BCS theory ring any bells ?

Edited October 24 by Mordred