A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[joigus]

On 10/22/2024 at 7:21 PM, MigL said:

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

So do I. Not to mention the fact that these SU(3) "atoms" are in excess to ordinary protons in the universe by a whopping factor of 10⁴³ and high-precission tests of the standard model have told us nothing about this bizarre vacuum. Things in the vacuum get scattered when the necessary energy is supplied, because they shift the Feynman diagrams in a way that cannot be ignored.

But I could be wrong, of course.

I also think the thread is going inordinately fast, with a noise-to-signal ratio that makes it prohibitive for the likes of me.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

So do I. Not to mention the fact that these SU(3) "atoms" are in excess to ordinary protons in the universe by a whopping factor of 10⁴³ and high-precission tests of the standard model have told us nothing about this bizarre vacuum. Things in the vacuum get scattered when the necessary energy is supplied, because they shift the Feynman diagrams in a way that cannot be ignored.

But I could be wrong, of course.

I also think the thread is going inordinately fast, with a noise-to-signal ratio that makes it prohibitive for the likes of me.

That was a point I was trying to get across but I prefer your overall descriptive to the manner I presented the problem which obviously went over everyone's heads +1

[MJ kihara]

13 hours ago, Mordred said:

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

What is an SU(3) atom...

.....mmmm....the idea has been in this forum for almost a year before this paper was published  but in a different perspective...it seems the concept is diffusing to other people or just a coincidence,I don't know...it's the concept that matters...I understand the defender...you won't agree with them..I think the author is getting math that happens to solve the cosmological constant issue...I don't know if he has further insight beyond that....I also would want to know if the author has ever visited this forum to get inspiration... nowadays information flows at lightening speed.the author is using a concept to solve an already existing problem.

[Mordred]

41 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

.....mmmm....the idea has been in this forum for almost a year before this paper was published  but in a different perspective...it seems the concept is diffusing to other people or just a coincidence,I don't know...it's the concept that matters...I understand the defender...you won't agree with them..I think the author is getting math that happens to solve the cosmological constant issue...I don't know if he has further insight beyond that....I also would want to know if the author has ever visited this forum to get inspiration... nowadays information flows at lightening speed.the author is using a concept to solve an already existing problem.

There has certainly been similar ideas around the concept of eliminating quantum noise from other fields to focus on a specific field interaction is a fully valid idea.

Obviously one of the better ways to accomplish this is through cooling to reduce quantum vibrational interference so there is nothing unheard of there.

It was never the conceptual ideas I ever had an issue with. It's literally how it was handled and described by the authors paper.

It's also why I consider this thread worthwhile to examine and spend a considerable amount of my personal time suggesting better treatments to shoot ideas on how to make it a fully usable professional peer review quality.

Truthfully I wish I could directly talk to the author  himself.

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

11 minutes ago, Mordred said:

There has certainly been similar ideas around the concept of eliminating quantum noise from other fields to focus on a specific field interaction is a fully valid idea.

Obviously one of the better ways to accomplish this is through cooling to reduce quantum vibrational interference so there is nothing unheard of there.

It was never the conceptual ideas I ever had an issue with. It's literally how it was handled and described by the authors paper.

The author is dealing with spacetime its self...the layout of the universe it's self..the basic, fundamental vacuum....on page 16 he talks about sentience and self replication....I hope you now get the idea...that's why am talking of a concept from this forum a year ago, specifically speculation section?????????. I don't mean quantum noise. No further queries.

[joigus]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

That was a point I was trying to get across but I prefer your overall descriptive to the manner I presented the problem which obviously went over everyone's heads +1

Yes, I remember having started to think about it when you mentioned Feynman diagrams. Sorry I didn't credit you. OTOH, now that I think of it, I don't even know what it means to say that there are 10¹²³ particles of a given kind in the vacuum. Let alone SU(3) bound states!!! Why not virtual Vanadium atoms?  

No, really. Why not?

 The vacuum in QFT is made up of infinitely many Feynman diagrams with no external legs. They are all ultimately loops, and there are infinitely many of them, of course. The expectation value of the number operator is always zero for the vacuum though.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

The author is dealing with spacetime its self...the layout of the universe it's self..the basic, fundamental vacuum....on page 16 he talks about sentience and self replication....I hope you now get the idea...that's why am talking of a concept from this forum a year ago, specifically speculation section?????????. I don't mean quantum noise. No further queries.

Spacetime itself has nothing to do with SU(3)

Spacetime is SO(3.1) and you cannot measure anything in spacetime without having something to measure  it's just volume without other particle fields. With time given dimensionality of length via the Interval without other fields you can literally treat it as just space devoid of any mass energy  term.

In essence the Einstein vacuum devoid of any other particles including virtual which under QM is considered an impossibility.

47 minutes ago, joigus said:

 

 The vacuum in QFT is made up of infinitely many Feynman diagrams with no external legs. They are all ultimately loops, and there are infinitely many of them, of course. The expectation value of the number operator is always zero for the vacuum though.

Yeah that operator zero being ground state zero not true zero. 

Edited October 24 by Mordred

[Mordred]

12 hours ago, joigus said:

Yes, I remember having started to think about it when you mentioned Feynman diagrams. Sorry I didn't credit you. OTOH, now that I think of it, I don't even know what it means to say that there are 10¹²³ particles of a given kind in the vacuum. Let alone SU(3) bound states!!! Why not virtual Vanadium atoms?  

No, really. Why not?

 The vacuum in QFT is made up of infinitely many Feynman diagrams with no external legs. They are all ultimately loops, and there are infinitely many of them, of course. The expectation value of the number operator is always zero for the vacuum though.

Let's give an assist of the first 5 pages or so looking specifically at the two primary treatments.

1) The harmonic oscillator equations. (That's not spacetime)

2) the SU(3) relations specifically the strong force.

Now here is a trick in Lattice networks the mathematics do have a \(\Lambda\) term but its a different application than that of cosmological Lambda.

It also has a scale factor (a) for the lattice spacing.

So let's keep the above in mind.

Now let's try a simplified mathematical overview of how each scenario evolves as you go from high energy physics to low energy physics.

In the equation for the harmonic oscillator you have the \(\hbar\) which tells you that as the energy increases this value also increases ie the kinetic energy in the equations example the 1/2 is specifically describing the action of a spring.

So one this case as the temperature increases so does the energy produced by the Zero point energy formula.

Sounds good makes sense so the energy calculated with be proportional to the temperature as one increases so does the other. I believe everyone will agree on that.

However now look at the SU(3) example. Apply that for the strong force obviously you need something for that strong force to act upon so lets simply use two quarks. Great we can now calculate the strong between them. Sounds good.

However there is a little detail called asymptotic freedom/quark confinement.

Why is the important well as you raise the temperature or how from high low energy to high energy the coupling strength is inversely proportional to the energy/temperature not proportional

As you raise the energy/temperature the strong between the two gluons decreases and it increases as you approach zero Kelvin  which is the exact opposite of the zero point energy formula given in the article..

I will everyone think about that.

Why is there so much research on SU(3) lattice gauge has to do specifically on fine  tuning the couplings and group parameters not solving the vacuum catastrophe believe me this isn't the article I've seen attempts to solve the cosmolgicsl problem using SU(3) lattice networks in the 30 years of reading articles. There is nothing new for me on these attempts they follow very similar patterns in the way they are written but they rarely ever look at the  temperature range vs each and what results at different temperature/energy levels.....

It's not the first time I've seen this conjecture on forums

 

lol for that matter this paper is an excellent example of look at the mathematics involved and not the verbal descriptives. Verbal descriptions can oft be an excellent tool to mislead the reader.

One of the more common warning signal is the defenders stating 

" ignore the mathematics this is new physics the mathematics don't apply"

Or " it's the concept that's important not the math this is new physics"

Those statements sound literal alarms with my experience on forums.

 

Edited October 25 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

lol for that matter this paper is an excellent example of look at the mathematics involved and not the verbal descriptives.

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author?

According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.

[MJ kihara]

On 10/20/2024 at 4:24 PM, Mordred said:

Particularly since that value exceeds to estimated total particle number count of 10^90 particles

..and what Joigus  has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

[joigus]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Let's give an assist of the first 5 pages or so looking specifically at the two primary treatments.

1) The harmonic oscillator equations. (That's not spacetime)

2) the SU(3) relations specifically the strong force.

Now here is a trick in Lattice networks the mathematics do have a Λ term but its a different application than that of cosmological Lambda.

It also has a scale factor (a) for the lattice spacing.

So let's keep the above in mind.

Now let's try a simplified mathematical overview of how each scenario evolves as you go from high energy physics to low energy physics.

In the equation for the harmonic oscillator you have the ℏ which tells you that as the energy increases this value also increases ie the kinetic energy in the equations example the 1/2 is specifically describing the action of a spring.

So one this case as the temperature increases so does the energy produced by the Zero point energy formula.

Sounds good makes sense so the energy calculated with be proportional to the temperature as one increases so does the other. I believe everyone will agree on that.

However now look at the SU(3) example. Apply that for the strong force obviously you need something for that strong force to act upon so lets simply use two quarks. Great we can now calculate the strong between them. Sounds good.

However there is a little detail called asymptotic freedom/quark confinement.

Why is the important well as you raise the temperature or how from high low energy to high energy the coupling strength is inversely proportional to the energy/temperature not proportional

As you raise the energy/temperature the strong between the two gluons decreases and it increases as you approach zero Kelvin  which is the exact opposite of the zero point energy formula given in the article..

I will everyone think about that.

Why is there so much research on SU(3) lattice gauge has to do specifically on fine  tuning the couplings and group parameters not solving the vacuum catastrophe believe me this isn't the article I've seen attempts to solve the cosmolgicsl problem using SU(3) lattice networks in the 30 years of reading articles. There is nothing new for me on these attempts they follow very similar patterns in the way they are written but they rarely ever look at the  temperature range vs each and what results at different temperature/energy levels.....

It's not the first time I've seen this conjecture on forums

 

lol for that matter this paper is an excellent example of look at the mathematics involved and not the verbal descriptives. Verbal descriptions can oft be an excellent tool to mislead the reader.

One of the more common warning signal is the defenders stating 

" ignore the mathematics this is new physics the mathematics don't apply"

Or " it's the concept that's important not the math this is new physics"

Those statements sound literal alarms with my experience on forums.

 

Agreed. A "vacuum" made up of SU(3) bound states wouldn't have the properties required to give rise to a cosmological constant, due to assymptotic freedom and confinement. Very clearly in particular due to confinement. How would these atoms push each other apart?

At extremely low temperatures there's no interaction, and at high temperatures it's constantly producing more and more "lines of force" among every member of the triplet. So it's a no go for that reason too, IMO. 

I'd been thinking about that too, but generally I prefer to look for the quickest, simplest reason why an idea wouldn't work. This is not to be spiteful. It's for the sake of saving thinking time. You need to rule out bad ideas as quickly as possible. I also think that should be done before attempting any laborious calculation.

[MJ kihara]

On 10/24/2024 at 3:51 AM, Sandeepkapo said:

Hope that helps clear things up!

When you I think from a holographic perspective...mmmm...I think things turn out to be more complicated with huge implications...that would end up touching on the issue of Universe Age/evolution it's self..

[joigus]

7 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

and what Joigus  has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem

I said this because there are about 10⁸⁰ nucleons within the cosmological horizon. Nucleons are SU(3)-bound states. And 10¹²³=10⁴³*10⁸⁰.

I don't know about the holographic principle in this context. The reasoning is clearly non-holographic, as it refers to a volume content of gauge interactions giving rise to a volume content of vacuum energy density.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, joigus said:

Agreed. A "vacuum" made up of SU(3) bound states wouldn't have the properties required to give rise to a cosmological constant, due to assymptotic freedom and confinement. Very clearly in particular due to confinement. How would these atoms push each other apart?

At extremely low temperatures there's no interaction, and at high temperatures it's constantly producing more and more "lines of force" among every member of the triplet. So it's a no go for that reason too, IMO. 

I'd been thinking about that too, but generally I prefer to look for the quickest, simplest reason why an idea wouldn't work. This is not to be spiteful. It's for the sake of saving thinking time. You need to rule out bad ideas as quickly as possible. I also think that should be done before attempting any laborious calculation.

Switch that around the the coupling strength gets stronger at low temperatures due to asymptotic freedom weakest as temp increases. 

See second graph coupling strength on Y axis conversion from GeV to Kelvin 11606 Kelvin per eV for x axis 

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

Is there anything wrong with the formulas employed by the author?

According to my views the math appears to be straight forward...if the formulas are correct it mean the math is okay, however, the arguments about derivation of N ( SU 3 atoms) should be controversial.

The article has zero mathematics for SU(3) so it's claims on that regard

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

When you I think from a holographic perspective...mmmm...I think things turn out to be more complicated with huge implications...that would end up touching on the issue of Universe Age/evolution it's self..

That really amounts to trying to build a workable model for the Author as none of those mathematics are inclusive.

Edited October 25 by Mordred

[joigus]

13 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Switch that around the the coupling strength gets stronger at low temperatures due to asymptotic freedom weakest as temp increases. 

Yes, thank you. I mixed up the energy (temperature) scales with the length scales, which are inverse to each other. 😊

[Mordred]

Just now, joigus said:

Yes, thank you. I mixed up the energy (temperature) scales with the length scales, which are inverse to each other. 😊

Correct where for the ZPE it's proportional not inverse.

[MJ kihara]

27 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The article has zero mathematics for SU(3) so it's claims on that regard

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics.

The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective.

For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger...

Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

[Mordred]

25 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

 

For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger...

 

The more physics one studies the more interconnected one realizes different theories get +1

[JosephDavid]

49 minutes ago, MJ kihara said:

It's creating a correspondence in SU(3) concept and cosmological constant problem....I think beyond that no need to import SU (3) mathematics.

The author seem to have other papers that are heavy mathematically,after a quick online search, therefore,he is not limited in that perspective.

For me I also have my own thinking (concepts) that's makes/helps me leapfrog the current arguments and see in much deeper angle...the holographic perspective...and I can assure you it's much amazing 🤩...it's weird how scientific concepts from different backgrounds link tonger...

Einstein saying 'we can't solve problems with the same thinking we used to create them'

Ah, that's an interesting point you've brought up! The author citing papers connected to the holographic principle and mentioning in the abstract that this solution might shed light on the origin of gauge/gravity dualities adds a whole new dimension to the discussion. You see, the holographic principle is this fascinating idea that suggests all the information contained in a volume of space can be represented as a theory on the boundary of that space, kind of like how a hologram works. It's a deep concept that bridges quantum mechanics and gravity. The author might be aiming to provide insights into how gauge theories (SU(3)) relate to gravitational theories through cosmological constant lens. This ties into the gauge/gravity duality, which is a powerful concept in theoretical physics suggesting that certain gauge theories are equivalent to gravity theories in higher dimensions. If the author's approach can highlight the origin of these dualities, it could be a significant step toward understanding how different forces in the universe are connected at a fundamental level. It might even offer clues about how spacetime and gravity emerge from more basic quantum processes. So, not only is the paper addressing the cosmological constant problem by proposing that dark energy behaves like a superconductor state of matter, but it's also potentially shedding light on deep connections between quantum field theories and gravity. That's pretty exciting stuff! It's always amazing to see how ideas from different areas of physics can converge, offering new perspectives and solutions to longstanding problems. As Einstein said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Exploring these new connections might be just what's needed to push our understanding forward.

[joigus]

ChatGPT, is that you?

[JosephDavid]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

..and what Joigus  has stated excess of proton in the order of 10^43...after thinking and from what am having,comparing that with how the author is solving cosmological constant problem...we may be dealing with holographic principle,any error arising in transmission may be due to quantum noise,to me this is amazing since I never thought of it (holographic principle) to be possible,I took it to be fiction, in this case I see it can be real...this is amazing 🤩.

Do you think this paper relevant ?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12481-7

Edited October 25 by JosephDavid

[Mordred]

A little hint on the Holographic principle in regards to SU(3) lattice networks treatments you can also find String theory treatments as well as MSSM super symmetric.

[JosephDavid]

1 hour ago, Mordred said:

A little hint on the Holographic principle in regards to SU(3) lattice networks treatments you can also find String theory treatments as well as MSSM super symmetric.

That is very interesting hint, can you elaborate more ?

[Mordred]

45 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

That is very interesting hint, can you elaborate more ?

Sure but I would prefer to take the time to find half decent literature examples in this case.

A large part of it is different methodologies to handle the nonrenormalization of the  findings of the Nambu-Jona-Lasinio model mentioned here. This is a huge part of the reason for all the SU(3) lattice gauge articles you guys are finding. This all is also part of BCS theory mentioned in below link

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nambu–Jona-Lasinio_model

But  in this case I'm only loosely familiar with some of the research as it's not one of my specialty areas in so far over the years I've read numerous articles on the topic and some of the research but don't particularly follow it closely or rather not as much as I do in early universe processes as I'm a Cosmologist with formal training in Cosmology and particle physics.

One detail to recognize is that a gauge theory such as SU(3) isn't  necessarily  identical in every treatment that's one of the things recognize when it comes to gauge theories.

A good example is the distinctions between QM and QFT they both use SU(3) but the operators themselves in each case are different. So it's essential to look specifically how any given theory applies a given gauge group.

Edited October 25 by Mordred

[Mordred]

Here is a good article on Supersymmetric BCS. I will be adding articles of different treatments under methodologies as I locate what I see as decent ones. Readers will also note it also includes Kaluzu-Klein 

https://arxiv.org/abs/1204.4157

However one critical detail is that these mathematics are being applied to condensates Bose-Einstein and Fermi-Dirac condensates.

This article is quite a bit simpler to relate to but the holographic treatments can get just as tense as above.

https://phas.ubc.ca/~berciu/TEACHING/PHYS502/PROJECTS/20-HolSC-SB2.pdf

Here is decent more classical article on condensed matter physics. Treat it more as a starting point a more textbook format if you will.

https://www.eng.uc.edu/~beaucag/Classes/AdvancedMaterialsThermodynamics/Books/PhysicsofCondensedMatter.pdf

This will definitely draw interest the last article includes something many people have rarely heard about. The Einstein frequency though the name Bose-Einstein condensate should be a obvious clue.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_solid

Hope that helps you will note these treatments do use terms such as vacuum ( the vacuum in these cases is NOT the same as an quantum or spacetime vacuum.) They are vacuums due to lattice spacing.

Hope that helps.

https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.14741

Above is a decent coverage of condensed matter gauge groups.

I'm going to add another suggestion to all readers attempting to teach themselves physics.

Anytime you are studying an article and see a reference to terminology, theory etc stop reading the original article and familiarize yourself with the theory or terminology before continuing to read the original article. The more you do that the easier it becomes to understand professional level articles.

Lol I lost count the number of times I started reading articles that I thought were related to Cosmology applications then suddenly hit some theory I had never heard of and when I examined that theory or term realized I'm reading the wrong treatment for what I was looking for.

Lol though if the article is particularly good I do read the full article with the methodology above.

A good personal example is this

(Fields)

https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9912205

I've been studying this for several years and only halfway through when I get time. However that's just a suggestion.

Another useful technique if you can't afford textbooks then search for dissertation papers and lecture notes 

Edited October 26 by Mordred