MigL

But the argument was specific to the proton, and its associated stability. Are ubstable neutrons not held together by those same gluons that 'represent the unbreakable SU(3) symmetry' ???

For several pages you've been making the argument that the proton is the fundamental SU(3) 'particle, because it doesn't decay, and associated 3rd law considerations. Then you make the jump to using the volume of the proton as the fundamental unit in the calculations. What thermodynamic considerations allow for a volume to be a fundamental unit ? Certainly not the same ones that allow fir a proton to be a fundamental unit. After all, other particles share a similar volume, and they are not fundamental as they decay. If you don't quit going round in circles attempting to explain yourself, you're going to get dizzy.

There are racist and sexist Democrats also; they are, after all, politicians and human. But the Republican leader, D Trump, has normalized such behavior, and so most Republicans express such behavior, and are not ashamed of openly doing so.

OK. Multiply the number of protons in the universe by 20 ( 5 % x20 = 100 % ) which gives 20 x 1080 , nowhere near 10123 though, is it ? You are actually using the VOLUME of the proton in your calculation. And still haven't justified its use.

whoah ! When you started with I was thinking something totally different. My bad !

We understand the underlying Thermodynamics, we just don't understand the 'connections' made to other phenomena. The neutron is similar, and the same as the SU(3) minimum volume; should it not be just as stable according to SU(3) stability considerations??? So if the neutron is NOT stable, IOW, it isn't the volume that matters, but the proton itself, "Why are you not using the number of protons in the calculation, instead of the volume ?"

True. While Canada has fringe far right, and fringe far left, in the US most of the Republican party, other than a handful, are the far right. And I'm talking about the political parties, not the orientation of the general population. Canada's three major parties are essentially 'centrist', while America's are now center to far right. I can similarly name many Democrats who are considerably 'right wing'.

Then why are you dividing the volume of the observable universe by the volume of a proton to get the vacuum energy adjustment ? Why not divide by the number of protons in the observable universe ? What justifies the volume consideration ????

Canadians like the Confederate flag because it looks 'cool', most have no idea what it signifies, nor do they care. I don't like PP either, a little too 'slick' for my taste ( would love to see Peter MacKay as PM ), but keep in mind that Canadian Conservatives are more liberal than American Democrats

Neutrons, being composed of the same building blocks as protons would seem to have as many states as a proton, except a much much longer lifetime.. You are using the fact that we have never seen proton decay, to assume hey never do, and the further assumption that this indicates that the proton volume is equivalent to the SU(3) stability volume because of thermodynamic considerations related to proton stability. But how is this related to the SU(3) minimum volume stability ? You cannot use the same thermodynamic considerations to argue for 'volume' stability. And 'volume' is what you are using to subdivide the unreasonably high vacuum energy, not protons.

Sorry my mistake; meant to write Helium atom. Stable, and a superfluid. Observation of a Casimir effect between separations of less than the 'proton volume' ? I can't think of a method for doing this, but , it would indicate vacuum energy must be considered at much smaller scales.

You don't see that this is an assertion with no evidence, physical or mathematical, to back it up ? It just so happens to slot into your pet theory, so you run with it. Why not pick the hydrogen atom as the remnant volume ? Or why not up/down quarks as remnant volume since they are also stable, and involved with SU(3) symmetry ? I suspect it's because it doesn't produce a neat answer with numbers that match the magnitudes you require for your pet theory. Until the foundation is solid, and if you ( the author ) can connect all the dots, it is just a theory based on numerology.

That's in the standard playbook of dictators and despots. Keep your citizens ignorant, and withhold balanced impartial news, so that they can be easily controlled. D Trump has learned from the 'best' of them. But it doesn't say much for about 70 million American voters either.

Rumor is the WP was all set to endorse Harris, but J Bezos quashed it because he's afraid of retribution should Trump win. Last I heard quite a few editors/reporters have resigned, and they've lost 200K subscribers. Maybe all these people who are afraid of Trump should help make sure he's not elected, instead of kissing his ass.

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 ...

You can use dashed, or dotted, lines also ... There are many ways to illustrate the path taken by test particles in free-fall, through space-time, such that the path length is minimized. ( in the context of GR )

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.

People who pay attention to the details, and think a little, didn't show up to vote, and a lot of them didn't think highly of the alternative either. People have to realize, especially young people and women, if you don't vote you get the Government old white men deserve. Get your ass out to vote, or it'll happen again. ( preaching to the choir, I know )

Either you don't understand the Holographic Principle, or you are misusing it.

The method described in the video uses the vacuum energy from quantum fluctuations, where we consider the maximum energy available in the smallest unit of measurable time ( according to the HUP ), in the smallest unit of measurable space. The OP decides to 'throw out' all quantum fluctuations below the volume of a proton ( equal to the SU(3) atom ). We know that there are quantum fluctuations below that scale, and that they contribute to the vacuum energy. Yet your pet theory says they don't, and we should believe it ? That was the issue with your 'early' posts; you tend to believe your 'logic' as opposed to actual observations. You can find other videos similar to the one I posted, at this site https://www.youtube.com/@PhysicsExplainedVideos/videos Most are very interesting and educational.

While the standard method for deriving the vacuum energy density involves harmonic oscillators and the Planck scale cut-off, the method utilized in the 2nd half of this video gives related critical reasoning for using the Planck scale cut-off. Using a cut-off of the SU()3) atom scale, approximately the size of a proton, would seem to ignore energy contributions from smaller scales, without a reasonable related explanation such as in the video. The fact that the SU\(3) atom scale happens to give numbers which seem to fit our needs is, then, finding relations where none exist, AKA numerology. ( Note that the method used in the video calculates the maximum Planck energy allowed in Planck time as per the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and, while simple to understand, may not be nuanced enough to consider factors which may reduce this maximum. )

Paerticle radioactivity, such as Alpha and Beta radiation, cannot be modulated on Electromagnetic radiation.

If you actually think that is the simplest, most likely explanation, and not just being unable to sleep because your subconscious is regurgitating your conscious thinking, maybe it would be wise to consult a mental health professional.

It was a loooong time ago, but I seem to remember the teacher comparing to even and odd numbers, and how two odds make an even, while two evens also make an even.

No arguments with any of the responses the OP got. But Come on !?! Don Rickles was hilarious !