timmdeeg said:
Interesting question, I would love to know the opinion of experts in this field. Jaffe asks "Do the zero point energies of quantum fields contribute to the energy density of the vacuum and, mutatis mutandis, to the cosmological constant." The answer could help to solve one of the biggest mysteries of the universe.
Hello Timmdeeg:
I have not responded to your question so far, as I have been pondering an answer, but
I have to follow George (Mentor) in his reply.
It is obvious that there are different aspect to the universe that we do not/cannot and will not understand completely.
To give you a simplistic answer to your question would not suffice as everyone in this forum is after truths as we know them.
Although nature in all 'Her' diversity appears simple in relative terms, her complexity in allowing this simplicity, is beyond the present ability for us to comprehend or understand completely.
Before I am told to desist by the moderator, for introducing philosophy, it has to be said that a great deal of mathematics and physics is attempting to merge consciousness with/into the math and our entanglement with the universe as the 'Schrödinger box' scenario. One of these people is myself.
I can only give you a direction:
Gödel's incompleteness theorem.
Hidden variables.
Most of these ideas are for you to take in, learn and pass on to other students etc.
This is called rote learning.
Now look at the future...students looking up YOUR name; conjectures,theories and proofs...
Out of the box, being expelled form academia or ridiculed?
Remember Higgs...!
I like the precision in the use of mutatis mutandis in the question above.
For the first part of the question,
"Do the zero point energies of quantum fields contribute to the energy density of the vacuum?".
In short, they are the embedded structure of the vacuum.
"and, mutatis mutandis, to the cosmological constant.".
Difficult to answer to your exact use of mutatis mutandis.
1.With those things having been changed which need to be changed.
2.The necessary changes having been made.
3.The things that should have been changed having been changed.
Being pedantic, which one should I,if you wish, respond to?
Thank you.