Vacuum energy spectrum, density and constant term....

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concepts of vacuum energy density and spectrum, specifically exploring the possibility of a constant offset term that could adjust the energy density to avoid large values. Participants consider the implications of such a term and its physical meaning, as well as the broader issues related to vacuum energy in quantum field theory (QFT).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a constant offset term could be frame invariant and what its physical implications might be.
  • Another participant notes that vacuum energy is infinite in QFT and discusses the technique of normal ordering to address this issue.
  • There is mention of the need for a cut-off in QFT to make sense of vacuum energy, reflecting the modern Wilsonian view.
  • One participant raises the concern that vacuum energy should affect spacetime curvature, questioning the assertion that it has no observable consequences.
  • Responses indicate that while energy differences in QFT are what matter, gravity complicates the situation, leading to unresolved issues regarding vacuum energy's effects.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the implications of vacuum energy, particularly regarding its observable consequences and effects on spacetime curvature. The discussion remains unresolved with multiple competing perspectives on the nature of vacuum energy and its implications in QFT.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of renormalization and the need for cut-offs in QFT, but do not reach a consensus on the implications of vacuum energy or the existence of a constant offset term.

asimov42
Messages
376
Reaction score
4
Hi all,

A question about the vacuum energy density and spectrum. The only spectrum that is frame invariant involves the cube of the frequency. Is it also possible to have a constant offset term (which would also be frame invariant), to 'adjust' the energy density so it doesn't turn out to be huge? The constant offset would correspond to a harmonic oscillator with frequency zero, which wouldn't make sense. I'm wondering a) if such a term (a constant) has been considered, and b) if there are any hypotheses as to the 'meaning' of the term? (i.e., what would the constant negative offset correspond to physically?)

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vacuum energy was actually one of the first indications of sickness in QFT because its infinite. There is a technique called normal ordering that makes it zero:
https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/zero-point-energy-and-qed-vacuum-state.820670/

Really though its one of the infinities that plague QFT that renormalisation is needed to fix up. Renormalisation is, like most things in QFT, complex. I however did write an insights paper to at least try and give an idea what its on about:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/renormalisation-made-easy/

So the answer to your question is most QFT's need a cut-off to make sense - this is the modern Wilsonian view he got a Nobel Prize for. We may not know what that cut-off is, but you need it. With such a cut-off you simply redefine the zero energy to be the cut-off and you don't have a problem.

As I explained in other threads you started vacuum energy doesn't have any observable consequences so its rather moot if its any concern at all. Certainly nobody has figured out how to extract its energy..

Thanks
Bill
 
Hi Bill,

Ah, great thanks - the other threads were very helpful as well. Re: the vacuum energy not having any observable consequences - shouldn't this affect spacetime curvature in some way?

Thanks again.
J.
 
asimov42 said:
Ah, great thanks - the other threads were very helpful as well. Re: the vacuum energy not having any observable consequences - shouldn't this affect spacetime curvature in some way?

Yes it should - but like all things in QFT the situation is complex:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

As John Baez points out, and I mentioned, in QFT only energy differences matter so it has no observable consequences. But gravity is the issue - that gives an unambiguous indication. This is a BIG problem that to the best of my knowledge has no current solution.

But of course solutions have been proposed.
http://www.calphysics.org/zpe.html

But right now we simply do not know.

Thanks
Bill
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
7K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K