How correct is this paragraph about vacuum zero point energy.

[Spinnor]

Doing some searching about the zero point energy of the vacuum I came up with an excerpt from Google books,

Page 62 of

http://books.google.com/books?id=ZP...um zero point energy density estimate&f=false

I think the paragraph stated that the zero point energy contribution from boson fields was positive while the contribution from the fermionic fields tended to cancel the bosonic contribution. Is that correct, and if so is there a hand wavey way of explaining that? I naively thought that the zero point fluctuations of all the different fields was positive.

Thanks for any help!

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Thanks for the post! Sorry you aren't generating responses at the moment. Do you have any further information, come to any new conclusions or is it possible to reword the post?

 

[marcus]

Hi Spinnor, hi Greg!
Spinnor has a question relating to a fairly basic textbook in quantum optics and quantum electrodynamics.
Cavity Quantum Electrodynamics: The Strange Theory of Light in a Box
By Sergio M. Dutra
I think it would be a good question to ask in the Quantum Mechanics forum.
The textbook was published 2005 by Wiley, it looks like advanced undergraduate material, with lots of problems.
It talks about LASERS and how they work.

This is not Beyond the Standard Model fodder. IMHO. I could be wrong but I'd ask a mentor to move it to QM forum.

Or did you already try asking in QM and not get an answer? Is there something I'm missing about your question
that makes it inappropriate for QM and appropriate for BtSM?

If you want to move it, you can press the "report" button at the lower left corner of your post and just say "mentor please move to QM" and they will be very willing to help, I think. Or if you are hesitant about doing that, just tell us what you want done and I'll get their attention. It's easy, they're nice.

 

[Demystifier]

I think the paragraph stated that the zero point energy contribution from boson fields was positive while the contribution from the fermionic fields tended to cancel the bosonic contribution. Is that correct, and if so is there a hand wavey way of explaining that?

That is correct, and is related to the fact that fermionic fields anti-commute rather than commute, which brings in an additional negative sign in many equations involving fermions.

 

[Spinnor]

That is correct, and is related to the fact that fermionic fields anti-commute rather than commute, which brings in an additional negative sign in many equations involving fermions.

Thank you for your help!

 

[nikkkom]

Hmm, the "mysterious" coincidence that sum of squares of all bosons' masses seems to be equal to sum of squares of all fermions' masses now has an explanation, doesn't it?

 

[Spinnor]

Hmm, the "mysterious" coincidence that sum of squares of all bosons' masses seems to be equal to sum of squares of all fermions' masses now has an explanation, doesn't it?

It might but I wouldn't know it, where might I start to learn more?

 

[bapowell]

Hmm, the "mysterious" coincidence that sum of squares of all bosons' masses seems to be equal to sum of squares of all fermions' masses now has an explanation, doesn't it?

Only if the universe is supersymmetric...

 

[nikkkom]

It might but I wouldn't know it, where might I start to learn more?

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/top-higgs-higgs-vev-relation-from-conformal-symmetry.768598/