Undergrad Momentum cutoff, Lorentz violation and the vacuum state

Click For Summary
Introducing a momentum cutoff leads to Lorentz violation, necessitating a preferred frame, which raises questions about the nature of the vacuum state. The vacuum can only be considered 'empty' in this preferred frame, suggesting that its definition may need to change. Observations in other frames become irrelevant if Lorentz symmetry is not preserved. A naive implementation of a momentum cutoff could yield a consistent theory that aligns with experimental results, but it would also imply that the ground state in the preferred frame appears excited in other frames. The specifics of how boosts are computed will influence the outcomes of these observations.
asimov42
Messages
376
Reaction score
4
Hi all - related to a question I asked some time ago: If one introduces a momentum cutoff, the result in the most basic case is Lorentz violation. That is, some form of preferred frame must be introduced. I'm wondering what this does to the vacuum state? That is, how does one keep the vacuum 'empty' despite this preferred frame? Or does the notion of the vacuum have to change?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
By 'empty' I mean that the vacuum can only be in the ground state in the preferred frame, correct?
 
asimov42 said:
By 'empty' I mean that the vacuum can only be in the ground state in the preferred frame, correct?
Correct. But if Lorentz symmetry is no longer the symmetry of the theory, then it is pretty much pointlesss to even ask how the vacuum (or anything else) looks in other Lorentz frames.
 
Thanks @Demystifier. If one were to do the totally naive thing and introduce a momentum cutoff in the preferred frame, without changing other aspects of the theory, what would one expect to observe?
 
asimov42 said:
Thanks @Demystifier. If one were to do the totally naive thing and introduce a momentum cutoff in the preferred frame, without changing other aspects of the theory, what would one expect to observe?
An ugly but consistent theory that can be compared with experiments.
 
Certainly - but then there should be an expected (predicted) observation. For example, applying a boost in the 'right' direction should make the ground state in the preferred frame look excited in another, no?
 
asimov42 said:
make the ground state in the preferred frame look excited in another
Yes. I would call it a computational approximation rather than a "theory". Like ignoring the curvature of the Earth in a ballistic calculation.
 
asimov42 said:
Certainly - but then there should be an expected (predicted) observation. For example, applying a boost in the 'right' direction should make the ground state in the preferred frame look excited in another, no?
I think it depends on how exactly do you compute the boost, i.e. what do you keep fixed. Have you tried to do the actual calculation? For free fields it should not be difficult.
 

Similar threads

Graduate The "electroweak eta meson"
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
680
Undergrad Vacuum energy cutoff and Lorentz invariance....
  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
Graduate Can the huge energy of quantum vacuum explain the observed value of dark energy?
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Vacuum cutoff, normal ordering, Planck scale and 10^120....
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Graduate "The 7 Strangest Coincidences in the Laws of Nature" (S. Hossenfelder)
  • · Replies 62 ·
3
Replies
62
Views
10K
Undergrad Four Questions on vacuum phase transitions in the Universe...
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
A firewall confusion related to disentangling the vacuum
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Undergrad Lorentz violation and the physical vacuum....
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Graduate Vacuum in interacting QFT and physical particles
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Graduate Just standard model and gravity, up to high energies? An update
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K