Solving for the space-time metric in the QFT integrals

Mike2
Messages
1,312
Reaction score
0
I just heard that the cosmological constant is a coupling constant in some perturbative expansion of some QFT and can be interpreted as a mass? Is this true? Wouldn't that be interesting? That would mean that the GR effect of expansion may be responsible (or may be an equivalent expression for) QFT, right? Where can I learn more about this?

If this is correct, then there is now two ways to look at mass - as the coupling constant in QFT and as the mass matrix that is the metric that transforms between configuration space and phase space (Frankel's The Geometry of Physics, page 55). Since the coupling constant is solved for using the integrals of a perturbation expansion, is it possible to equate the coupling constant, which is a mass, to the metric, or its determinate, and equate this to the integral of the perturbation expansion, which also involves the metric in the integrand. Wouldn't this turn the metric into a dynamical entity to be solved for in the process? Or has this already been attempted? Or would this give us not enough equations to solve for the number of unknowns? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mike2 said:
I just heard that the cosmological constant is a coupling constant in some perturbative expansion of some QFT and can be interpreted as a mass? Is this true? Wouldn't that be interesting? That would mean that the GR effect of expansion may be responsible (or may be an equivalent expression for) QFT, right? Where can I learn more about this?

If this is correct, then there is now two ways to look at mass - as the coupling constant in QFT and as the mass matrix that is the metric that transforms between configuration space and phase space (Frankel's The Geometry of Physics, page 55). Since the coupling constant is solved for using the integrals of a perturbation expansion, is it possible to equate the coupling constant, which is a mass, to the metric, or its determinate, and equate this to the integral of the perturbation expansion, which also involves the metric in the integrand. Wouldn't this turn the metric into a dynamical entity to be solved for in the process? Or has this already been attempted? Or would this give us not enough equations to solve for the number of unknowns? Thanks.
What I don't understand is whether this "mass matrix" which serve as a metric between configuration and phase space is applicable in general or even special relativity. And I'm not sure that the mass matrix can apply to one particle or does it only apply to many particles. Any help would be appreciated.
 
Mike2 said:
What I don't understand is whether this "mass matrix" which serve as a metric between configuration and phase space is applicable in general or even special relativity. And I'm not sure that the mass matrix can apply to one particle or does it only apply to many particles. Any help would be appreciated.
If it can, I wonder if the coupling constant can be equated to the cosmological constant times the metric and then all this equated to a perturbation integral with the metric in it also, then does this constitute an eigenvalue problem with the cosmological constant as the eigenvalue? This is off the wall, so feel free to shoot it down. Thanks.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. Towards the end of the first lecture for the Qiskit Global Summer School 2025, Foundations of Quantum Mechanics, Olivia Lanes (Global Lead, Content and Education IBM) stated... Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/quantum-entanglement-is-a-kinematic-fact-not-a-dynamical-effect/ by @RUTA
If we release an electron around a positively charged sphere, the initial state of electron is a linear combination of Hydrogen-like states. According to quantum mechanics, evolution of time would not change this initial state because the potential is time independent. However, classically we expect the electron to collide with the sphere. So, it seems that the quantum and classics predict different behaviours!

Similar threads

Back
Top