We thought we have this really quite nice result on Dhe.

So we submitted that to the journal.

I knew that we were gonna have this problem because I had had a similar problem before.

When I wrote a paper which we entitled Cosmic Springs on the Journal was submitted to it wrote back saying, This is very nice piece of work but the title won't do when we had to make it a very technical title.

So I thought this might happen and anywhere we submitted it off.

But within an hour of submitting, it's a physical review.

The editor who was in charge of it wrote back that it was quite funny.

Reply way.

He wrote a SW.

Far as I know, the Beatles have made no contribution to the field of cosmology on dhe Vitaly was telling, telling us to get rid of references to George, Paul, Ringo and John.

Okay, so this is ah, paper that I've recently written with their two colleagues here at Nottingham and another colleague in France On the title of the paper is General Second Order.

Scared of tenses theory.

Self tuning on the far four So obviously the curious part about that is that the average is the Fab Four, which does refer to John, Paul, George and Ringo.

Four lads from my hometown there went on to form the Beatles.

This is is a serious scientific paper.

It presents a solution or a possible solution to one of the most difficult problems in physics, which is the cosmological constant problem.

And as I said, we're trying to solve this thing very difficult problem.

We started with something very, very general.

We managed Thio really reduce our theory down to four key elements.

And so it was given how difficult it wasn't how gentle it wasn't in the beginning, the fact that reduced to four very simple key elements from stage we thought it was seven, so we called in the magnificent seven.

But then we actually realized that three of those were sort of trivial.

So seven became for well, I'm from Liverpool.

So I was born in the same hospital is as John Lennon s o.

You know, it's kind of close to my heart.

These air are sort of four key elements of the theory, which is sort of really what described the theory you have to worry about.

You know what this means, But as you can see, we've named them John Paul George on Ringo.

Okay, so, yeah.

So we sent off to the journal and immediately came back.

Would have Bean assessed by by any any experts just saying there's no way we're gonna publish a favour with all these references to the Beatles in it, in view of the Beatles Limited contribution to cosmology.

So what happened next is basically we had to change it.

We had to cave in.

Really?

We didn't have much choice in the matter because it's important to get these papers into journals and the scientific constant.

Certainly good enough to manage.

That s o.

We just had to call John number one, Paul number two, Georgian over three, and Ringo number four, which is not quite as colorful.

The Fab Four lives on because in certainly in our field of research, the way that, uh, we submit papers now, it's kind of a jewel process on in particle theory.

You submit your papers.

Once you finish them, you submit them to an electronic archive on DDE.

That electronic archive every day gets updated with new papers on Ben.

You can you can submit that the paper you've sent to the archive, you can also submit it to a journal for refereeing.

So we submitted it to the archive, and it's living on the archive and it's downloaded and it's been referenced quite a few times.

It's kind of then I've done, and actually we're gonna write another paper on this subject, and there will certainly be referring to Is the fact for it.

So it's set in stone now and then one day the jails are just gonna have to accept that.

George, uh, Ringo Pole and John don't appear in the one submitted to the Journal, but apart from that, they're the same way.

Haven't changed anything else.

Academic papers, a very serious, important things.

And this sounds like some pretty serious some highbrow work.

Why would you put a joke in something funny out?

Why do you do in the first place?

Because we're a fun group.

We enjoy our work.

If you don't enjoy your work, go and do something else on a lot of money doing something else.

We for us, it's, um it you know the calculations we've done correct as far as we know on their their old them very seriously.

And we got together on a regular best is Oliver's to discuss it and check things on.

It was towards the end that that we realized that with these four terms in emerged and we just when you when you're writing your notes, you just wrapping, calling them a B C D.

We thought, Well, let's call them Let's give him a name.

So we're tryingto and basically attack the cosmological constant problem, which is probably the hardest problem of the most em virus ing problem in physics today we look out in the in the universe a rounders and imagine you you took out all the planets and all the stars in the universe will be empty.

But it wouldn't mean that it had zero energy would have what we call a vacuum energy.

Well, we can see the effect of the vacuum energy on the expansion of the universe.

So one thing that of a vacuum energy will do to the universe's expansion is it will.

It will cause its expansion to accelerate this space.

The space itself is getting bigger, but gravity is an attractive force, so, strictly speaking on, attracted for attractive force will slow down and expansion.

That's not what's happening is not what we're seeing.

And one of the explanation explanations for that is that it's actually vacuum energy that's causing it to accelerate.

So what?

What the vacuum energy does is it turns that deceleration into an acceleration.

So the big question is, where does vacuum energy come from?

Well, the vacuum, the vacuum in energy comes in a vacuum.

But then you count.

You look at particle physics and you say, OK, let's try and count what we think the vacuum energy should be.

We can observe what it is, but let's shine working out from first principles.

You look it, say the electron, and you see that the electron contributes some vacuum energy.

It has its own vacuum in here, contributes some Angie's in a vacuum.

All the other particles do the same.

And when you add all this up, you realize there's a huge mismatch between what you expect to see and what you actually see.

So what people some people expect is that, for example, that actually the vacuum into zero.

But perhaps quantum corrections give you a very small documented.

This would be the dream.

Some symmetry of nature.

Take the vacuum energy to zero and quantum corrections make it sort of slightly slightly just above zero, for example.

But this is very, very hard to do to find that symmetry.

It takes you to zero vacuum energy in the first place.

That's what we've set out to do.

We've set out to try and try and find that on Dhe.

Our starting point was, was really We started looking at the way gravity behaves.

So trying one's done How gravity behaves.

You think of it from the particle physicists points of view way often.

Talk about gravity is being curvature of space and time.

That's like that's like the relativists.

You have gravity.

I want to think of this from a particle physicist point of view on what gravity is what any forces actually is.

The exchange of virtual particles exchange particles.

So the earth is exchanging particles with the sun.

You and I, Brady, we are.

There's a graph small gravitational attraction between us and the way our exchanging virtual particles called gravitons.

You can't just grab it, grab it on just at some point, grabs the we're exchanging Connor's grab it right there.

Virtual that.

You know, you can't just isolate one like that.

What?

We said what would happen if you if something else helped to mediate the gravitational force?

So there wasn't just exchanged.

These graviton is the exchange of other particles too.

So we took the simplest scenario, which is that you The gravitational force comes from the exchange of these gravitons.

Plus what we call a scale a particle.

And this is just a particle that has no directional dependence.

Very simple.

The Higgs particle looking for the n h l h c.

That's an example of the scale of particles.

So we asked the question, What's the most general theory describing gravity that involved exchange of gravity ons on dhe?

This scale at Boston General Theory you could right now on were to our surprise, we discovered that some obscure PhD student in the seventies and actually found this and a guy called Han Deskee had actually discovered what this theory waas.

Now it is very complicated how he wrote it on when we discovered this.

We were thinking of a similar thing, but we decided to do a search to see if anyone had done included.

This scale of field and we found on desk is work, and it was written down in quite a complicated way.

It's a big, long expression.

Can this theory solve the cosmological constant?

Are their corners of this theory that shot of the cosmos a constant problem on dhe?

So we asked that question and we said, Right, let's essentially put this theory through our cosmological constant problem filter.

Let's demand that this the recon solve it so essentially gives us that extra symmetry that solves the cosmological constant problem and out popped the farm full.

It is remarkable we had such a horribly complex theory, really complex there and out popped these for very simple sort of building blocks to what is a solution, essentially to the cosmological constant, since they are the building blocks for the symmetry that allows you to thio set that documented Jeeter Zira that terms that arise in Ex explaining the theory.

There's four key terms.

That's why, before there, there's a lot more to test.

For example, we need to test that they can give a viable cosmology, not just that they can de gravitate the vacuum engine, but they're actually can give us a viable cosmology.

You know, over a long period.

I like this one.

I like it not least because we had great fun doing it, and we're still working very actively on it.

But it's a nice idea.

I think.

I really think it's quite a nice idea.

It may all collapse.

I mean, it could be that when we begin to work out quantum corrections to this, the whole thing breaks down on.

It's not only that we need to be able to get reproduce the gravity gravity we see in the solar system, and that's not trivial to do this, but But actually, the fact that you got these grade Ian's here might help in that regard.

Let me be a front about the actual solution that we this thing eventually goes to doesn't seem to be quite what we're at today.

But what it provides you with is an initial way of getting rid of the problem of this big cosmological constant.