Is another ame for the zero point energy field, the vacuum?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between zero point energy and the vacuum, with zero point energy defined as the energy present in seemingly empty space due to quantum fluctuations. It is noted that this energy arises from virtual particles as predicted by quantum field theory, which some participants question. The concept of vacuum is debated, suggesting that it should not be viewed as entirely devoid of content, as multiple quantum fields can exist simultaneously, leading to different vacuum states. The implications of zero point energy are also linked to dark energy and the cosmological constant. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexity of defining vacuum in quantum physics.
redhedkangaro
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
Is another ame for the zero point energy field, the vacuum?
 
Space news on Phys.org


You can think of zero point energy as the energy in an empty region of space. Of course this region isn't totally empty or else there would be zero energy there. The zero point energy is the contribution from virtual particles predicted by quantum field theory. Some of the members who are better versed in QFT can probably elaborate on this point if you are interested. Cosmologically, the zero point energy is the most straight forward explanation for dark energy (I use straight forward liberally here).
 


It's also used as the source for the cosmological constant...
Wiki has some explanations and references...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_point_energy


"The zero point energy is the contribution from virtual particles predicted by quantum field theory.."

Never heard that...don't believe that's correct...but virtual particles would be a component of the quantum fluctuations.
 
Last edited:


redhedkangaro said:
Is another ame for the zero point energy field, the vacuum?

from a scholasticism type analysis , vacuum should not be claimed to be "with out anything", because for "without anything" we get a unique concept of vacuum. But it is not vacuum is not "one" concept. we can have a space time extension in which more than one quantum field exist , one field A have all it's mode in vacuum state but the other field B do have some excited modes. So the spacetime area is vacuum for A but not for B.
generally we have many vacuums, I think. And in the calculation of vacuum energy for an dark energy explanation ,we just take into account the vacuum of one scalar field ,which is just hahaha ,assumed, to be exist.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
Why was the Hubble constant assumed to be decreasing and slowing down (decelerating) the expansion rate of the Universe, while at the same time Dark Energy is presumably accelerating the expansion? And to thicken the plot. recent news from NASA indicates that the Hubble constant is now increasing. Can you clarify this enigma? Also., if the Hubble constant eventually decreases, why is there a lower limit to its value?

Similar threads

Back
Top