Is it a fact that vacuum energy exists?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the existence of vacuum energy and zero point energy, which are often cited as established facts in physics. Participants argue that while vacuum fluctuations are observable phenomena, the concept of vacuum energy lacks conclusive experimental evidence. The Casimir effect is highlighted as a key example where quantum fluctuations contribute to observable forces, but some argue it can be explained by van der Waals forces, challenging the notion of vacuum energy's reality. The conversation emphasizes the philosophical nature of this topic, with differing interpretations among physicists regarding the "reality" of these concepts.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of quantum mechanics and quantum field theory (QFT)
  • Familiarity with the Casimir effect and its implications
  • Knowledge of the cosmological constant and its role in cosmology
  • Ability to interpret peer-reviewed physics literature
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the Casimir effect and its relation to quantum fluctuations
  • Study the cosmological constant and its implications for vacuum energy
  • Explore peer-reviewed articles on vacuum energy and zero point energy
  • Examine the mathematical frameworks of quantum field theory, particularly the Dyson Series
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, students of quantum mechanics, and anyone interested in the philosophical implications of vacuum energy and its role in modern physics.

  • #31
anuttarasammyak said:
Say Casimir effect comes from energy differences of "vacuum energy", anyway Casimir effect has something to do with vacuum energy, doesn't it ?
No, because as I said the Casimir effect relates to "energy differences", not to "vacuum energy differences". There is an effective potential energy as a function of the distance ##d## between the plates, leading to an effective force, that's the main point. But taking the Casimir effect as "proof" for the existence of a vacuum energy (as e.g. hinted at in Weinberg's paper just cited) is plainly wrong.

In my opinion the only thing that is safe to say is that the relation between the cosmological constant and potential quantum effects is unclear.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: protonsarecool and anuttarasammyak
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
otennert said:
In my opinion the only thing that is safe to say is that the relation between the cosmological constant and potential quantum effects is unclear.
Does that mean that it is unclear to say that the cosmological constant is the same as vacuum energy?
 
  • #33
Suekdccia said:
Does that mean that it is unclear to say that the cosmological constant is the same as vacuum energy?
Well, this is why it is called the "cosmological constant problem", isn't it? Again, I am referring to the Weinberg review from 1989. There are also tons of more recent literature on this.

Actually I think the Wikipedia entry is also a good entry point into this matter: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem
 
Last edited:
  • #34
otennert said:
No, because as I said the Casimir effect relates to "energy differences", not to "vacuum energy differences". There is an effective potential energy as a function of the distance ##d## between the plates, leading to an effective force, that's the main point. But taking the Casimir effect as "proof" for the existence of a vacuum energy (as e.g. hinted at in Weinberg's paper just cited) is plainly wrong.

In my opinion the only thing that is safe to say is that the relation between the cosmological constant and potential quantum effects is unclear.
Thanks. I found a web article to explain it with a key word of "field radiation pressure".
"At a cavity-resonance frequency the radiation pressure inside the cavity is stronger than outside and the mirrors are therefore pushed apart. Out of resonance, in contrast, the radiation pressure inside the cavity is smaller than outside and the mirrors are drawn towards each other." https://physicsworld.com/a/the-casimir-effect-a-force-from-nothing/
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 75 ·
3
Replies
75
Views
11K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K