Is the Vacuum Energy Density Sign Correct for Bosons?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gerald V
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Cosmological constant
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the sign of the vacuum energy density in relation to bosons and the cosmological constant. It highlights the Born-Infeld theory, which incorporates a negative vacuum action density of -b², suggesting that this term must be counterbalanced for accurate physical representation. Participants confirm that the vacuum energy of free bosons is indeed positive, drawing parallels to the ground state energy of quantum harmonic oscillators, which is quantified as ħω/2. This establishes that current quantum physics supports a positive vacuum energy density for bosons.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Einstein's equations and the cosmological constant
  • Familiarity with the Born-Infeld theory and its Lagrangian formulation
  • Knowledge of quantum harmonic oscillators and their energy states
  • Basic concepts of vacuum energy density in quantum physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of the Born-Infeld theory on modern cosmology
  • Study the relationship between vacuum energy density and the cosmological constant
  • Explore quantum harmonic oscillator models and their applications in particle physics
  • Investigate current theories regarding vacuum energy in quantum field theory
USEFUL FOR

Physicists, cosmologists, and researchers in quantum field theory who are exploring the implications of vacuum energy density and its effects on cosmological models.

gerald V
Messages
66
Reaction score
3
My head is spinning when it comes to the sign of the vacuum energy density and the cosmological constant. The cosmological term can be put at the left or the right side of Einsteins equation, energy density is not pressure and energy density is not action density.

There is a historic theory with a cosmological term arising naturally, that is the Born-Infeld theory describing the electromagnetic field. If this term was kept, the Born-Infeld Lagrangian would read (one minor term supressed)

##L = - b^2 \sqrt{1 + \frac{1}{2b^2} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}}##

So the vacuum action density is ##-b^2##, which is negative assumed that ##b## is real. I am aware that first there is no obvious relation to the results from quantum physics. Second this term has to be counterbalanced (as Born-Infeld did by simple subtraction), since for the approximate expansion of the square root to work, ##b^2## has to be large.

Question:
If this cosmological term was regarded as if it was the result from current quantum physics, would it have the correct sign for bosons?



2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Negative constant term in the Lagrangian corresponds to positive energy. That's because Lagrangian is kinetic energy minus potential energy, and constant energy is a kind of potential energy.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: romsofia
Thank you very much. I was aware of what you are saying. But, is this the correct sign for bosons? Does current quantum physics think the vacuum energy density of bosons is positive (and huge, namely of Planckian order of magnitude; forget observation), and is there a simple argument why?
 
gerald V said:
But, is this the correct sign for bosons? Does current quantum physics think the vacuum energy density of bosons is positive (and huge, namely of Planckian order of magnitude; forget observation), and is there a simple argument why?
Yes, vacuum energy of free bosons is positive. A simple argument is that free bosons behave like a bunch of harmonic oscillators, and it is well known that ground state energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator is positive, ##\hbar\omega/2##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
92
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K