- #1

- 292

- 38

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- I
- Thread starter dsaun777
- Start date

In summary, the gap between the theoretical prediction of the cosmological constant and the observed value is because the value is many orders of magnitude off from what is actually observed.

- #1

- 292

- 38

Physics news on Phys.org

- #2

Mentor

- 43,750

- 21,249

- #3

Gold Member

- 167

- 299

The resulting formula is an integral that diverges, but one argues should be cutoff at the Planck scale. It depends exactly where you cut the integral off and exact details of your assumptions for the contribution of each field, but the result is about a factor of ##10^{123}## off the actual value.

A sketch of the calculation is given in Matt Visser "Lorentzian Wormholes", Chapter 8.

- #4

- 292

- 38

Does the value have anything to do with Planck density?LittleSchwinger said:

The resulting formula is an integral that diverges, but one argues should be cutoff at the Planck scale. It depends exactly where you cut the integral off and exact details of your assumptions for the contribution of each field, but the result is about a factor of ##10^{123}## off the actual value.

A sketch of the calculation is given in Matt Visser "Lorentzian Wormholes", Chapter 8.

- #5

Gold Member

- 167

- 299

The result comes out as:dsaun777 said:Does the value have anything to do with Planck density?

##\Lambda = 8\pi G \beta\rho_{P}##

With ##\rho_{P}## being the Planck density. ##\beta## is a constant produced by summing up the contributions of each field. No assumptions on the contributions of each field produce a value for ##\beta## small enough to give the true value.

The Planck Density appears because one has cutoff the integral at the Planck length.

Last edited:

- #6

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 31,682

- 18,063

There isn't one. That is, one cannot write down an equation for it, There are hand-wavy arguments about what it should be, but no calculation.dsaun777 said:I am sorry but I can't seem to find the actual estimated value of the cosmological constant that is predicted by quantum field theory.

- #7

- 292

- 38

But it is something of the order of Planck density and that value is many orders of magnitude off from the observed one. Is the one observed more accurate and less hand wavy?Vanadium 50 said:There isn't one. That is, one cannot write down an equation for it, There are hand-wavy arguments about what it should be, but no calculation.

- #8

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 31,682

- 18,063

That's a polite way of saying "I don't believe a damn thing you said." Your choice.

- #9

- 292

- 38

I believe everything you said. I'm more curious to know about the gap of how the general relativity or classical cosmological constant differs from the qft.Vanadium 50 said:That's a polite way of saying "I don't believe a damn thing you said." Your choice.

- #10

Mentor

- 43,750

- 21,249

Assuming the observations are correct, any actually observed value is more accurate than a theoretical prediction.dsaun777 said:Is the one observed more accurate

How can an actual observation be "hand wavy"?dsaun777 said:and less hand wavy?

- #11

Mentor

- 43,750

- 21,249

Classical GR makes no prediction whatever about the value of the cosmological constant; all it tells you is that including the cosmological constant term in the field equation is consistent with all of the other features of the theory.dsaun777 said:I'm more curious to know about the gap of how the general relativity or classical cosmological constant differs from the qft.

- #12

Gold Member

- 167

- 299

The derivation I mentioned above and covered in Visser's book has many weak points. It's the argument being discussed when people mention the "terrible Cosmological constant prediction of QFT". However there is a large literature disputing the argument.dsaun777 said:But it is something of the order of Planck density and that value is many orders of magnitude off from the observed one.

- #13

- 24,155

- 14,653

The point of course is that, even in a Dyson-renormalizable theory, as is the Standard Model, you have renormalize the "vacuum energy", i.e., it's a free parameter not determined by the theory. If you naively add up all socalled "zero-point energies" of all fields cut off at the Planck scale, then you get this huge factor compared to what's measured in cosmological observations (redshift-distance relation of SNe, fluctuations of the CMBR), but in fact it's to be renormalized anyway, and thus it's a free parameter.Vanadium 50 said:That's a polite way of saying "I don't believe a damn thing you said." Your choice.

The issue, however, remains also from the point of view of renormalization theory, because if you renormalize the SM at a small renormalization scale suited to the observations on accelerator experiments with elementary particles and you use the renormalization-group equation to evaluate the zero-point energy at a higher renormalization scale like the GUT scale or even the Planck scale, you get again a huge discrepancy, i.e., you need extreme fine-tuning to get it right, and that's felt to be "unnatural".

- #14

- 292

- 38

It can be hand wavy in the sense that it does not provide the full and necessary observation to make definite conclusion about the actual cosmological constant. The observations are not in depth enough to confidently state the accuracy of the cosmological constant. Despite inconclusive observational evidence it is still presented as if it were the actual cosmological constant in a hand wavy manor.PeterDonis said:Assuming the observations are correct, any actually observed value is more accurate than a theoretical prediction.

How can an actual observation be "hand wavy"?

- #15

Mentor

- 43,750

- 21,249

I'm not sure what you mean. Every real observation has error bars; we never make observations with infinite accuracy.dsaun777 said:It can be hand wavy in the sense that it does not provide the full and necessary observation to make definite conclusion about the actual cosmological constant.

What observational evidence do you think is inconclusive, and on what basis? Please give specific references.dsaun777 said:Despite inconclusive observational evidence

- #16

- 24,155

- 14,653

Here's a pretty recent short review:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2105.09409

Share:

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 780

- Replies
- 1

- Views
- 715

- Replies
- 31

- Views
- 245

- Replies
- 10

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 514

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 445

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 707

- Replies
- 21

- Views
- 853

- Replies
- 8

- Views
- 745

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 611