A Has a calculation of the vacuum energy density been done with strings?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the calculation of vacuum energy density, which presents a significant discrepancy with observed values, suggesting a mass equivalent of about $10^{96}$ kilograms. There is no established calculation of vacuum energy density using string theory, only estimates in standard quantum field theory (QFT). Participants express frustration over the incorrect presentation of facts and the lack of clarity regarding the estimates. The discrepancy of $10^{120}$ is noted, but its relation to string theory remains uncertain and is identified as an open area of research. Overall, the thread concludes with the acknowledgment that personal speculation is not welcome, and the original question has been addressed.
JandeWandelaar
Messages
111
Reaction score
17
TL;DR
The vacuum energy density of the vacuum, as calculated in standard QFT, shows a discrepancy of about $10^{120}$ with what we see. Has the value been calculated in string theory, which doesn't assume point-like particles?
The calculation of the vacuum energy density gives us a discrepancy with reality. There should be a mass equivalent of about $10^{96}$ kilograms. I'm wondering if the assumed point-like "structure" of particles could be the cause of this wrong value.

Since string theory doesn't assume a point-like structure, I asked myself if a calculation of the energy density with strings has been done.
 
  • Wow
Likes Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
JandeWandelaar said:
The calculation of the vacuum energy density gives us a discrepancy with reality.

Nonsense. There is no such calculation. At best, there is an estimate, and not a very good one at that.

Starting threads by presenting incorrect statements as facts is, in general, not a good plan.
 
Why does the estimate differ so much with what we see? Is there an estimate in string theory? I could not find it. Only estimates in standard QFT.
 
  • Like
Likes Delta2
Vanadium 50 said:
Nonsense. There is no such calculation. At best, there is an estimate, and not a very good one at that.

Starting threads by presenting incorrect statements as facts is, in general, not a good plan.
BTW, do you know why the LaTex doesn't function? Is $10^{120}$ not right?
 
JandeWandelaar said:
BTW, do you know why the LaTex doesn't function? Is $10^{120}$ not right?
you got to put double $ at start and end. And then refresh the page.
 
  • Like
Likes JandeWandelaar
JandeWandelaar said:
BTW, do you know why the LaTex doesn't function? Is $10^{120}$ not right?

for LaTeX on the forum: https://www.physicsforums.com/help/latexhelp/

This is a summary of how the ##10^{120}## discrepancy calculation is done, it is a bit heuristic
https://www.cantorsparadise.com/the...iction-in-the-history-of-physics-5be09b309043
Calculating vacuum energy in various QFTs is a thing, there are several papers published on that matter. Here is one such article https://arxiv.org/abs/1302.5934
 
  • Like
Likes JandeWandelaar and Delta2
Thanks dude (am I allowed...?). 😉
 
  • Wow
Likes Delta2
Is this about the so called, ground state energy of the fields?
 
JandeWandelaar said:
Why does the estimate differ so much with what we see?
Nobody knows. This is an open area of research.

JandeWandelaar said:
Is there an estimate in string theory? I could not find it.
I'm not aware of one either.
 
  • #10
PeterDonis said:
Nobody knows. This is an open area of research.I'm not aware of one either.
Somehow I think $$10^{120}$$ and the cube of the Planck length, $$10^{-115}$$, are related.
 
  • Skeptical
  • Wow
Likes malawi_glenn, PeroK and Motore
  • #11
JandeWandelaar said:
Somehow I think $$10^{120}$$ and the cube of the Planck length, $$10^{-115}$$, are related.
Personal speculation of this kind is off limits here.
 
  • #12
The OP question has been answered. Thread closed.
 
  • Like
Likes JandeWandelaar

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
494
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K