A solution to cosmological constant problem?

[joigus]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Slight correction it depends on how the vacuum is defined.  If it's a vacuum with an equation of state other than

w=-1 such as a quintessence vacuum it would dilute any vacuum with equation of state w=-1 such as the cosmological term does not.

Thanks.

[Mordred]

Your welcome a personal sidenote it was that very detail that got my dissertation on quintessence inflation to get invalidated wrong equation of state to observational evidence. It was written prior to WMAP using COBE dataset.

A side note @MJ kihara the illusion statement you gave earlier was a Berkenstein descriptive so I cannot fault you on that. You cannot be faulted for something contained in peer review literature.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[Mordred]

2 hours ago, Mordred said:

 

I will let the defenders mathematically show how this is possible  (ps there is a way and treatments doing so but I want the defenders to supply them )

 

Clue given by Joigus (gauge gravity duality now try and find the duality for SU(3).

Requirement above but also must produce Cooper pairs for Meissner effect.

There is a particular key theory I want to see if the defenders can identify.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, Mordred said:

Clue given by Joigus (gauge gravity duality now try and find the duality for SU(3).

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality.

17 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

the “holographic principle” says that everything inside a volume can be described by information on its boundary.

Are you agreeing with this definition.

[JosephDavid]

5 hours ago, joigus said:

But that's not the worst, this is a matter background, not a vacuum. A vacuum does not dilute with the expansion of the universe. A background does. 

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY

https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-weakening-major-astrophysics-study-finds-20240404/

 

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

Am not getting it when did the clue given? SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force....I talked about strong- weak duality.

Try gauge gravity duality

Specifically for SU(N)

 N = 4 Super Yang–Mills theory and type IIB string theory on AdS5 × S5, are identical and therefore describe the same physics from two very different perspectives. In particular, if the AdS/CFT conjecture holds, all the physics of one description is mapped onto all the physics of the other.

That's what the conformal element of ads/cft is describing.

So now I ask which article does Ashmed specifically apply this under a mathematical treatment without resorting to someone else's work ?

Anyone care to take a stab at that ?

What I am trying to do is give you a far better understanding of the holographic principle but that requires significant self study to grasp One cannot do that via a forum alone.

Ok simple case 

Take any arbitrary system A and conform it to another system B both systems have a defined boundary so you must have some translation between system A and system B

The conformal element...

So take an SU(N) system and conform it to a Maximally symmetric anti-Desitter spacetime there are only 3 Maximally symmetric spacetimes known De-Sitter/anti-Desitter and Minkowskii.

That is the Principle basis of the holographic principle and how its applied to quantum fields.

So have you ever studied string theory which would be required ?

Have you studied how some point like  particle property can be mapped through a mathematical space via a function which is true in string theory ?

what are the boundaries of a closed string vs an open string ?

how is charge mapped for start and end points in string theory ?

how can one understand how the holographic principle works in ADS/CFT if they can't answer those questions ?

You have to study from the start of how the theory is developed rather than jumping to the end....

The most important part the physics of system A must be identical to the physics of system B

 In order to be conformed...

If you want to understand String theory I suggest

String theory Demystified by David McMahon its about the easiest textbook on String Theory I have encountered

 

How am I confident the OP paper doesn't involve the holographic principle ?

its simple the Langrangian forms he provided do not include any terms for SUSY. In essence the entire discussion on the holographic principle has been nothing more than trying to fit personal favorite theories into someone else's model.

 

1 hour ago, JosephDavid said:

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY

https://www.quantamagazine.org/dark-energy-may-be-weakening-major-astrophysics-study-finds-20240404/

 

I recommend you don't rely on pop media coverage every theory always has competing theories that's all part of the scientific method.

Those findings are not conclusive they merely hint at the possibility.

Edited October 28 by Mordred

[joigus]

2 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

Actually, vacuum dilute as well according to recent study by DESY

First of all, as @Mordred pointed out, this is from Quanta Magazine, which is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication.

Second of all, if that were true, it doesn't mean it validates the numerology of paper under discussion.

Third of all, you chose to ignore morsels of language that are very relevant:

[...] may be [...]

[...] hints that [...]

[...] If true, it would be [...]

[...] It's possible we're seeing [...]

And, above all,

Quote

Researchers inside and outside of the collaboration all stress that the evidence is not strong enough to claim a discovery. 

(from provided source; my emphasis.) All of that you interpret as "actually, vacuum dilutes [...]"

I'm kinda old. I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not.

Edited October 28 by joigus
minor addition

[joigus]

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

SU(3) gauge symmetry is related to strong force

Not necessarily. SU(3) is just SU(3), a continuous group characterised in several ways: Its structure constants (commutation relations between generators), fundamental definition: 3x3 complex unitary matrices with det=1, etc. Strong force, OTOH, implies a coupling constant. There could be two copies of SU(3), both locally gauged (not global gauge group, like, eg, baryon number, but local, like EM), and each with a different coupling constant. One strong, and the other one very, very feeble. Almost undetectable. Why not?

3 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I talked about strong- weak duality.

There is no such thing if by 'duality' you mean Maldacena duality. There is a strong-coupling to weak-coupling duality in superstring theory. Sharks can be fish, and they can be dishonest money loaners too. The word in itself doesn't clarify the situation. As @Mordred says,

18 hours ago, Mordred said:

It's all the glamour kings that treat it as an illusion the metaphysics wannabe physicists. The ones that pay more attention to verbal descriptions than the mathematics.

'Moving the goalposts' does not even start to describe what's going on here.

You have an SU(3) every time three complex wave functions get shuffled into each other in a continuous and unitary way, like u, d, and s quarks in the primitive eightfold way. It doesn't imply 'strong'.

 

[MJ kihara]

Ads/CFT correspondence-wikipedia article.

.....It also provides a powerful toolkit for studying strongly coupled quantum field theories.^[2] Much of the usefulness of the duality results from the fact that it is a strong–weak duality: when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting....

I like wikipedia because it's easily accessible to the public domain.

5 hours ago, joigus said:

I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not

I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that.

6 hours ago, joigus said:

numerology of paper under discussion

Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123.

[MigL]

6 hours ago, joigus said:

I'm kinda old. I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not.

No, you're not old.
I've seen all those things come and go also.
Yet I had a dinner date with an attractive, intelligent, personable 38 year old woman on the weekend.
We were silly, laughed and enjoyed each other's company; you would not believe how young this 65 year old man felt.

[joigus]

4 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

when the fields of the quantum field theory are strongly interacting, the ones in the gravitational theory are weakly interacting....

That's (more than likely) because you feed into the Maldacena conjecture theories that are related by S-duality in superstring theory, not because (or not necessarily so) of the correspondence itself (take good notice of the word 'when' in your quote). The correspondence itself seems to be something equally deep and perhaps not totally understood yet, although the holographic principle could well be a unifying / synthetic principle explaining it. Those are difficult ideas with considerable conjectural stretching at the seams.

Wikipedia articles are accessible to all, full of references, valuable for many reasons. But clarity is not always one of them.

That's part of the reason why I try to avoid using Wikipedia articles in order to argue anything, but just in order to attach a working definition for a term I have to mention.

5 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I like wikipedia because it's easily accessible to the public domain.

I don't like it so much (although I sure use it) because it's sometimes (or can be) rather obscure. I remember a seminar by Neil Turok in which he practically ended up dissuading his students from reading the Wikipedia article on Noether's theorem, because after many paragraphs the simple idea that off-shell symmetries imply on-shell conservation laws was not displayed at all in the article, while the reader ended up probably confused by the inordinate amount of side tracks and embelishments.

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

12 hours ago, joigus said:

I've seen many, many 'earth-shattering' discoveries come and go: Antigravity, cold fusion, superluminal neutrinos, and what not

I haven't seen anyone in the thread claiming that.

The paper about antigravity is from the '80s and largely forgotten. I seem to remember an Eötvös-like kind of experiment. But I wouldn't blame anyone for not remembering...

As to cold fusion's infamous Fleishmann-Pons experiment, or the Gran Sasso neutrino fiasco, where have you been all these years? There you are. Feast your eyes. I've even included a Wikipedia article. The way you like it.  

6 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

12 hours ago, joigus said:

numerology of paper under discussion

Are you scared by one two three 123 in 10^123.

Are you being silly on purpose? It's not a scary number; it's an embarrassing one. Any physicists worth their salt would be embarrassed by this mismatch. Aren't you?

And it's not 123. It could be 122, or 120. Nobody knows exactly. It's a very rough estimate. 

6 hours ago, MigL said:

No, you're not old.
I've seen all those things come and go also.
Yet I had a dinner date with an attractive, intelligent, personable 38 year old woman on the weekend.
We were silly, laughed and enjoyed each other's company; you would not believe how young this 65 year old man felt.

Correction: I would believe it.

[MJ kihara]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

As to cold fusion's infamous Fleishmann-Pons experiment, or the Gran Sasso neutrino fiasco, where have you been all these years? There you are. Feast your eyes. I've even included a Wikipedia article. The way you like it.  

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

[JosephDavid]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

[Mordred]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

Perhaps you should reread the original comment. He mentioned other situations he has seen. He never suggested it was involved in this thread.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, MJ kihara said:

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

Another common trick is focusing on distractions such as this.

12 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

OK. Derive this SU(3) confinement scale number, with these solid physical principles, rather than giving hand-wavy arguments for it. i.e. give a rigorous calculation, rather than “implies” or “suggests”

(later on you can provide the evidence that dark energy acts like a superconductor, rather than relying on hints or suggestions) 

[Mordred]

8 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

So you don't find it distracting trying to add theories not in the original paper to begin with ?

The entire discussion of the holographic principle was a literal distraction as it's not in the OP paper.

The OP paper had nothing more complex than a little QFT and QED that where it should have stayed. However everyone tried injecting other possibilities through other referenced articles. Forcing everyone to guess and make random assertions.

Edited October 29 by Mordred

[MigL]

Whereas the Planck scale cut-off for the 'traditional' vacuum energy calculation is based on solid physical/mathematical  reasoning, This proposed SU(3) scale cut-off is based solely on the U(1) symmetry being broken at low temperature, while SU(3) retains stability. No calculations are presented to back up the claim that SU(3) minimum scale occurs at proton scale ( even though quantum fluctuations below that scale make huge contributions to vacuum energy ), and then the dubious jump is made to claim the number of proton volumes in the observable universe is equivalent to the mis-match between observed and calculated vacuum energy.
You are trying to construct a theory without providing the foundation, and while your goals may be admirable, skipping details only ensures that it comes crashing down.

Since you liked the last video, I'll post another on the viability of the Planck scale cut-off ...

 

Edited October 29 by MigL

[JosephDavid]

30 minutes ago, MigL said:

Whereas the Planck scale cut-off for the 'traditional' vacuum energy calculation is based on solid physical/mathematical  reasoning, This proposed SU(3) scale cut-off is based solely on the U(1) symmetry being broken at low temperature, while SU(3) retains stability. No calculations are presented to back up the claim that SU(3) minimum scale occurs at proton scale ( even though quantum fluctuations below that scale make huge contributions to vacuum energy ), and then the dubious jump is made to claim the number of proton volumes in the observable universe is equivalent to the mis-match between observed and calculated vacuum energy.
You are trying to construct a theory without providing the foundation, and while your goals may be admirable, skipping details only ensures that it comes crashing down.

Since you liked the last video, I'll post another on the viability of the Planck scale cut-off ...

 

 The author’s proposal is tied directly to some very solid experimental facts. We all know that the proton has never been observed to decay. That’s crucial. It means that, practically speaking, the proton is a stable structure, which strongly suggests that there’s something fundamental about its existence. Now, pair that with the third law of thermodynamics, which implies that as we approach absolute zero, there should always be some kind of remnant volume that doesn’t just vanish or break down. This tells us that there’s an unbroken, stable structure remaining even at the lowest energy states. Now, what the author is doing is connecting these dots: if there’s a remnant volume, and we know that protons don’t decay and are associated with SU(3) symmetry, then it makes perfect sense to use the volume of the proton as the benchmark for this remnant state. The SU(3) symmetry is unbreakable, it remains stable even when other symmetries like U(1) are broken near zero kelvin. That’s what makes protons so fundamental. The author matches this remnant volume, implied by the third law with the proton volume, defining SU(3) units or vacuum atoms. These SU(3) units can be used to explain why the vacuum energy doesn’t explode to some ridiculous value like QFT tells us it should. Instead, it’s spread out across these stable SU(3) units, bringing the predicted value right down to what we actually observe as dark energy.

So, what’s being overlooked here is that this whole approach is anchored in solid principles: the experimental stability of the proton, the third law of thermodynamics, and the fundamental unbreakability of SU(3) symmetry. The author isn’t skipping the foundations—he’s grounding the whole argument in them. It’s about finding a stable, unbroken remnant that matches what we see in nature, and that’s why using the proton volume as the basis makes so much sense. This is what lets the author solve the cosmological constant problem with high precision.

[swansont]

1 hour ago, JosephDavid said:

The author’s proposal is tied directly to some very solid experimental facts. We all know that the proton has never been observed to decay. That’s crucial. It means that, practically speaking, the proton is a stable structure, which strongly suggests that there’s something fundamental about its existence. Now, pair that with the third law of thermodynamics, which implies that as we approach absolute zero, there should always be some kind of remnant volume that doesn’t just vanish or break down

How is that implied? I see some assertions in the paper, but nothing that backs them up. No math.

[Mordred]

Let me ask you a question.

IF i handed you the entire Langrangian for the entire standard model and merely made claims from that Langrangian of say Oh this solves the cosmological constant problem without showing you how to extract the relevant variables and showing how it does so.

Would you believe me ?

The Standard model Langrangian is rigidly tested so its quite capable of doing so. However why would you believe me if I don't show precisely how it does so?

This is the situation with the paper. It's no different 

1 hour ago, JosephDavid said:

 The author’s proposal is tied directly to some very solid experimental facts. We all know that the proton has never been observed to decay. That’s crucial. It means that, practically speaking, the proton is a stable structure, which strongly suggests that there’s something fundamental about its existence. Now, pair that with the third law of thermodynamics, which implies that as we approach absolute zero, there should always be some kind of remnant volume that doesn’t just vanish or break down. This tells us that there’s an unbroken, stable structure remaining even at the lowest energy states. Now, what the author is doing is connecting these dots: if there’s a remnant volume, and we know that protons don’t decay and are associated with SU(3) symmetry, then it makes perfect sense to use the volume of the proton as the benchmark for this remnant state. The SU(3) symmetry is unbreakable, it remains stable even when other symmetries like U(1) are broken near zero kelvin. That’s what makes protons so fundamental. The author matches this remnant volume, implied by the third law with the proton volume, defining SU(3) units or vacuum atoms. These SU(3) units can be used to explain why the vacuum energy doesn’t explode to some ridiculous value like QFT tells us it should. Instead, it’s spread out across these stable SU(3) units, bringing the predicted value right down to what we actually observe as dark energy.

So, what’s being overlooked here is that this whole approach is anchored in solid principles: the experimental stability of the proton, the third law of thermodynamics, and the fundamental unbreakability of SU(3) symmetry. The author isn’t skipping the foundations—he’s grounding the whole argument in them. It’s about finding a stable, unbroken remnant that matches what we see in nature, and that’s why using the proton volume as the basis makes so much sense. This is what lets the author solve the cosmological constant problem with high precision.

Anyone can copy equations and throw them in an article with references.

If your not showing precisely how your applying those equations it does absolutely no good.

Cross posted with Swansont.

Edited October 29 by Mordred

[JosephDavid]

14 minutes ago, swansont said:

How is that implied? I see some assertions in the paper, but nothing that backs them up. No math.

Physics is fundamentally an empirical science, its foundation is built on measurements, observations, and experiments. It’s not about math for math’s sake; instead, math is just a language we use to describe physical phenomena. The real core of physics exists in connecting these descriptions to what we can actually measure. In this paper, the author uses the math of  spontaneous symmetry breaking and Snyder’s quantum spacetime, not as ends in themselves, but as tools to explain real, observable phenomena. The achievement here is in how the author finds logical connections between these physical measurements, uniting them in a simple, coherent relationship. This isn’t about whether there’s enough math and adding several complications, it’s about whether the math helps us understand and explain the empirical data we observe. The author managed to do exactly that, building a bridge between very solid physical concepts that leads to a clearer understanding of the universe, grounded in what we can actually measure.

[Mordred]

Great, how does that help when the author doesn't show how he determined his conclusions ?

I really don't understand why you don't grasp the author made no calculations.

\[\mathcal{L}=\underbrace{\mathbb{R}}_{GR}-\overbrace{\underbrace{\frac{1}{4}F_{\mu\nu}F^{\mu\nu}}_{Yang-Mills}}^{Maxwell}+\underbrace{i\overline{\psi}\gamma^\mu D_\mu \psi}_{Dirac}+\underbrace{|D_\mu h|^2-V(|h|)}_{Higgs}+\underbrace{h\overline{\psi}\psi}_{Yukawa}\]

this solves the cosmological constant problem

do you believe me ?

Edited October 29 by Mordred

[swansont]

8 minutes ago, JosephDavid said:

The author managed to do exactly that,

And there are people in this thread that disagree. Acting as a cheerleader does not bring any rigor to the discussion.

[JosephDavid]

6 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Great, how does that help when the author doesn't show how he determined his conclusions ?

I really don't understand why you don't grasp the author made no calculations.

 

L=RGR−14FμνFμνYang−MillsMaxwell+iψ¯¯¯γμDμψDirac+|Dμh|2−V(|h|)Higgs+hψ¯¯¯ψYukawa

 

this solves the cosmological constant problem

do you believe me ?

If you can solve something with a simple relation, why complicate it by adding more language ? As Newton once said, "Truth is ever to be found in simplicity, and not in the multiplicity and confusion of things." It’s like in language: why say "a round object used in games" when you can just say "ball"? The author found a simple, logical relationship that ties together the relevant measurements to address the issue.

[joigus]

8 hours ago, MJ kihara said:

I have not seen such issues in this thread.People throw such ideas in a thread to try discredit important issues under discussion...it's a common trick.

7 hours ago, JosephDavid said:

You know, this thread really shows two kinds of folks. On one side, you’ve got people who are actually trying to understand things by sticking to simple, solid physical principles. And then, you’ve got others who just can’t resist making it all way more complicated than it needs to be, adding confusion on top of confusion. It’s funny how so many people get excited about these complicated theories, like the 10^{500} possible multiverses, when the answer might just be staring us in the face, rooted in something as fundamental as the SU(3) confinement scale.

Ad hominem, IMO. I've given you two the negative reputation points you deserve for judging people on a thread about physical ideas.

What people? How do you know what my intention is? What kind of people do you think we are?

Irrelevant, of course.