I The Units of the Cosmological Constant: eV^2

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the units of the cosmological constant, specifically the confusion between its representation as eV^2 versus eV^4. In natural units, the cosmological constant (Λ) is correctly expressed in eV^2, while the energy density associated with it (ρΛ) is expressed in eV^4. The discrepancy arises from the distinction between Λ and ρΛ, with the latter being discussed in the referenced paper. The gravitational constant (G) contributes to the dimensional analysis, leading to the conclusion that Λ has dimensions of 1/L^2, which translates to eV^2 in natural units. Understanding this distinction clarifies the correct interpretation of the cosmological constant's units.
Safinaz
Messages
255
Reaction score
8
TL;DR
A question about the unit and the value of the cosmological constant
In natural units, it’s known that the unit of the cosmological constant is ##eV^2##.
I don‘t get why in this paper :

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.09016.pdf

page (1), it says the value of ##\Lambda \sim meV^4##, this means ##\Lambda \sim (10^6 ~ eV)^4 \sim 10^{24} eV^4 ##, shoud not the unit ##eV ^2 ## instead ?

 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because in natural units the dimension of the cosmological constant is energy^4 and it is not known that the dimension is energy^2.
 
Safinaz said:
Summary: A question about the unit and the value of the cosmological constant

In natural units, it’s known that the unit of the cosmological constant is ##eV^2##.
I don‘t get why in this paper :

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2201.09016.pdf

page (1), it says the value of ##\Lambda \sim meV^4##, this means ##\Lambda \sim (10^6 ~ eV)^4 \sim 10^{24} eV^4 ##, shoud not the unit ##eV ^2 ## instead ?

Safinaz said:
See for instance the discussion here:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-cosmological-constant-without-units

Or this paper : https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-th/0012253.pdf, equation (2)

They say the units of ##\Lambda## is ##eV^2 ## or equivalently in natural units ##cm^{-2} ## or ##sec^{-2}##
Ok, so the confusion is regarding ##\Lambda## vs ##\rho_\Lambda##. I was referring to ##\rho_\Lambda##, the energy density of the cosmological constant. The first paper you cite in the OP is discussing the scale of the energy density, the others discuss the constant appearing in front of the metric in the Einstein field equations. These differ by a constant ##8\pi G## and ##G## has dimensions energy^-2 in natural units.
 
  • Like
Likes Ibix and Safinaz
In such cases it's always good to go back to SI units first. From the Einstein equations you read off that ##\Lambda## has the same units as ##[G E]/(V^4 L^3)## (##G## gravitational constant, ##V## dimension of velocity, ##L## dimension of length). The gravitational constant itself has the dimension of ##[E] L/M^2## and thus ##[\Lambda]=1/L^2##. In "natural units" with ##\hbar=c=1## that means it dimension ##\text{eV}^2##.

A different way to see it is to realize that ##\Lambda c^4/(8 \pi G)=u_{\Lambda}## is an energy density (density of "dark energy"). Often you see also ##\rho_{\Lambda}=\Lambda c^2/(8 \pi G)##, which is the corresponding "mass density", i.e., ##\rho_{\Lambda}=u_{\Lambda}/c^2##.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Safinaz, Bandersnatch, Ibix and 2 others
The Poynting vector is a definition, that is supposed to represent the energy flow at each point. Unfortunately, the only observable effect caused by the Poynting vector is through the energy variation in a volume subject to an energy flux through its surface, that is, the Poynting theorem. As a curl could be added to the Poynting vector without changing the Poynting theorem, it can not be decided by EM only that this should be the actual flow of energy at each point. Feynman, commenting...