A fix for the Cosmological Constant problem?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the cosmological constant problem, specifically the discrepancy between the predicted vacuum energy density from quantum field theory (QFT) and the observed value. Participants explore various theoretical perspectives, including holographic and entropic viewpoints, as well as the implications of these theories on local versus global considerations in cosmology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the QFT calculation of vacuum energy was performed in a locally expanding spacetime or a non-expanding metric, suggesting that a slowly expanding metric might yield results closer to observations.
  • Another participant references Padmanabhan's work, proposing that the small value of the cosmological constant can be understood from a holographic perspective, indicating a shift towards viewing the cosmos through quantum informational frameworks.
  • A later reply challenges the applicability of holographic and entropic viewpoints to local QFT calculations, suggesting that these perspectives may not address the specific local phenomena involved.
  • One participant highlights the conflict between quantum theory predictions and general relativity, arguing that the predicted energy density from QFT would imply a closed universe that should have collapsed long ago, thus questioning the compatibility of these theories.
  • Concerns are raised about the feasibility of quantizing gravity through standard renormalization techniques, with a preference expressed for general relativity as a more accurate model.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of holographic and entropic theories, the nature of the cosmological constant problem, and the compatibility of quantum theory with general relativity. There is no consensus on these issues, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of current theories, including the breakdown of QFT at macroscopic scales and the implications of time in quantum theories. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties in the field.

Mike2
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
0
I hear that the calculated value of the vacuum energy using QFT is 120 orders of magnitude more than what is observed for the cosmological constant (or vacuum energy). But I wonder if this calculation was done in a very slow locally expanding spacetime. Or was it done with a strictly non-expanding metric? Perhaps when the QFT calculation is done in a very slowly expanding spacetime metric that the calculation might come out more equal to observation. Perhaps the small value of the differential expansion factor ends up multiplying the result and lowers it by 120 orders of magnitude.

Anyone have any insight into these things? Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Mike

This is no longer such a mystery. In

Padmanabhan's papers
http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~paddy/biodata/mylistpub.htm#2006

it is explained how the small number is natural from a certain holographic point of view. Moreover, an analysis of the type IA supernovae data based on a similar entropic viewpoint, made by

L. Riofrio
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/aspauthor2004_3.pdf

shows good agreement with the data. These are semiclassical pictures for which it is important to view the cosmos from a quantum informational perspective in terms of observer horizons - no magically concrete spacetime.

:smile:
 
Last edited:
Kea said:
Mike

This is no longer such a mystery. In

Padmanabhan's papers
http://www.iucaa.ernet.in/~paddy/biodata/mylistpub.htm#2006

it is explained how the small number is natural from a certain holographic point of view. Moreover, an analysis of the type IA supernovae data based on a similar entropic viewpoint, made by
Sorry, but I'm not able to open this type of file. Can you point me to a free application that opens these types of files? Thanks.

Off hand I would think that holographic and entropic view points seem to be global consideration and do not seem to address the local QFT calculation of the matter. Does this sound right to you?

L. Riofrio
http://www-conf.slac.stanford.edu/einstein/talks/aspauthor2004_3.pdf

shows good agreement with the data. These are semiclassical pictures for which it is important to view the cosmos from a quantum informational perspective in terms of observer horizons - no magically concrete spacetime.

:smile:
There does not seem to be a date of publication on this paper. Can you tell me how old it is? Do I read this right in that it is saying there is no acceleration in the expansion of the universe as was first suggested by the '98 supernovae data because the speed of light has changed over time? This seems quite controversal. Can you tell me what kind of reception this paper or authors have gotten? Thanks.
 
The 120M energy density problem is a quantum theory anomaly, and example of where QT predictions butt heads with GR. Since energy and mass are interchangeable under GR, the QT predicted energy density of the vacuum would result in a closed universe - and one that collapsed a long time ago at that. This, IMO, is symptomatic of a larger problem with QFT - it does not incorporate time. QFT breaks down at macroscopic scales just as GR does in the quantum realm. I think it suggests both models are approximations. I do, however, very much doubt it is possible to quantize gravity via renormalization as usual procedures. I lean toward GR as closer to correct. A universe without time is unphysical, IMO.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
12K
Replies
92
Views
10K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
5K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K