Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Minimal mass from cosmological constant?

  1. Jul 18, 2010 #1
    I'm not sure in which forum this should go, but I hope this is close enough.

    I recently realized that the lightest neutrino could be close in mass to the fourth root of the cosmological constant and found out I'm (unsurprisingly) not the first one to think of this after some googling. The first papers I found were somewhat interesting, but have few citations and their ideas seem to be ignored in most of the papers relating neutrino mass and cc.

    http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0509110" [Broken]

    "Abstract: We show that in the framework of the classical general relativity the presence of a positive cosmological constant implies the existence of a minimal mass and of a minimal density in nature. These results rigorously follow from the generalized Buchdahl inequality in the presence of a cosmological constant. "

    http://www.springerlink.com/content/u510l1mg85p963r1/"

    "Abstract A lower bound for the mass of a rotating body is derived in the general relativity theory with positive cosmological term Λ. The bound suggests a neutrino rest mass ∼1 meV and a neutrino magnetic moment of 10−41 erg/gauss ∼ Planck's magnetic moment. A connection between gravity and electroweak interaction is suggested. "

    Would anyone know if these conclusions would be obviously wrong, based on unfounded assumptions or otherwise invalid? An inequality showing that a given cosmological constant requires a minimum rotating mass, or even more interestingly the other way around; existence of a massive rotating particle forces the cosmological constant to be at most a given value, seems more than a little useful for explaining the low value of the cc.

    One could even speculate that this would explain cosmic inflation if the neutrino masses didn't exist before electroweak symmetry breaking.

    Any thoughts on this? Too good to be true? Just plain wrong?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 18, 2010 #2
    I don't know that you can backtrack this beyond the Higgs Mechanism, i.e. before electroweak symmetry breaking. This strikes me as an artifact of the math relating to the general concept IMO.
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook