Scalar field energy density and pressure in hot universe

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the treatment of scalar field energy density and pressure in the context of a hot universe, referencing Kolb & Turner’s work. It establishes that for a scalar field ##\phi## at finite temperature, the pressure is defined as ##p=-V_T(\phi)## and energy density as ##\rho=-p+T\frac{d p(T)}{d T}##, where ##V_T## represents the potential energy with temperature corrections. The conversation emphasizes the necessity of using the definitions derived from the stress-energy tensor in Friedman's equations, while also clarifying that Kolb & Turner's definitions stem from perturbative calculations involving free-energy at finite temperature.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Friedman's equations in cosmology
  • Familiarity with scalar field theory and its applications
  • Knowledge of thermodynamics in quantum field theory
  • Experience with perturbation theory in quantum mechanics
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the stress-energy tensor in general relativity
  • Explore the implications of finite temperature effects in scalar field theories
  • Research the classic paper by Dolan and Jackiw on effective potentials
  • Investigate phase transitions in cosmological models and their equations of state
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, theoretical physicists, and researchers interested in the dynamics of the early universe and the role of scalar fields in cosmological models.

karlzr
Messages
129
Reaction score
2
Kolb&Turner in "the early universe" mentioned that for a scalar field ##\phi## at finite temperature, ##p=-V_T(\phi)## and ##\rho=-p+T\frac{d p(T)}{d T}## where ##V_T## is potential energy including temperature correction. My question is: when we consider the evolution of the universe using Friedman's equation, should we use this kind of definition of ##\rho## and ##p## or we stick to those obtained from stress energy tensor? I would say the latter since that's what we can get from Einstein's equation. But then I don't understand what are Kolb&Turner's ##\rho## and ##p##. Why doesn't kinetic term contribute to them?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps the notation is unfortunate, but ##V_T(\phi)## there is not the scalar potential, but rather the free-energy computed at finite temperature in perturbation theory. So one puts the particles in an appropriate box with finite temperature boundary conditions (periodicity) and computes the partition function

$$ Z = \int \mathcal{D}\phi \exp \left\{ -\int_0^\beta d\tau \int d^3x \, \mathcal{L}(\phi) \right\}.$$

The effective action is ##-\ln Z## and is the sum of 1-particle irreducible diagrams. This quantity is called the "effective potential" because the perturbative calculation is done over diagrams where the external field legs are set to the vacuum expectation value of the scalar field. There are no physical external particles in the process.

The results quoted there are the results once the sum over momentum modes has already been done. There is a reference to [3] for the result which is the classic paper of Dolan and Jackiw, but a random web-accessible source is this master's thesis that seems to include the relevant calculations.

For most calculations of late-term cosmology, the pedestrian free-particle equations of state are appropriate. However, for early times, when phase transitions are possible, the finite temperature, interacting theory results are necessary.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K