I Is the Vacuum Energy Density Sign Correct for Bosons?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the sign of vacuum energy density and its implications for bosons in relation to the cosmological constant. The Born-Infeld theory is referenced, highlighting that its Lagrangian yields a negative vacuum action density, raising questions about its compatibility with current quantum physics. Participants clarify that the negative constant in the Lagrangian corresponds to positive energy, as constant energy is a form of potential energy. It is established that the vacuum energy of free bosons is indeed positive, akin to the ground state energy of quantum harmonic oscillators. The conversation ultimately seeks to reconcile theoretical frameworks with quantum physics interpretations regarding vacuum energy density for bosons.
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.
 
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##.
 
We often see discussions about what QM and QFT mean, but hardly anything on just how fundamental they are to much of physics. To rectify that, see the following; https://www.cambridge.org/engage/api-gateway/coe/assets/orp/resource/item/66a6a6005101a2ffa86cdd48/original/a-derivation-of-maxwell-s-equations-from-first-principles.pdf 'Somewhat magically, if one then applies local gauge invariance to the Dirac Lagrangian, a field appears, and from this field it is possible to derive Maxwell’s...