Is the Vacuum Energy Density Sign Correct for Bosons?

In summary, the paper examines the vacuum energy density associated with bosonic fields, questioning whether the conventional sign used in calculations is accurate. It explores theoretical implications and potential discrepancies in existing models, suggesting that a reevaluation could lead to new insights in quantum field theory and cosmology. The authors advocate for a careful analysis of the sign in the context of various bosonic particles and their contributions to the vacuum energy landscape.
  • #1
gerald V
68
3
My head is spinning when it comes to the sign of the vacuum energy density and the cosmological constant. The cosmological term can be put at the left or the right side of Einsteins equation, energy density is not pressure and energy density is not action density.

There is a historic theory with a cosmological term arising naturally, that is the Born-Infeld theory describing the electromagnetic field. If this term was kept, the Born-Infeld Lagrangian would read (one minor term supressed)

##L = - b^2 \sqrt{1 + \frac{1}{2b^2} F_{\mu \nu} F^{\mu \nu}}##

So the vacuum action density is ##-b^2##, which is negative assumed that ##b## is real. I am aware that first there is no obvious relation to the results from quantum physics. Second this term has to be counterbalanced (as Born-Infeld did by simple subtraction), since for the approximate expansion of the square root to work, ##b^2## has to be large.

Question:
If this cosmological term was regarded as if it was the result from current quantum physics, would it have the correct sign for bosons?



2
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Negative constant term in the Lagrangian corresponds to positive energy. That's because Lagrangian is kinetic energy minus potential energy, and constant energy is a kind of potential energy.
 
  • Like
Likes romsofia
  • #3
Thank you very much. I was aware of what you are saying. But, is this the correct sign for bosons? Does current quantum physics think the vacuum energy density of bosons is positive (and huge, namely of Planckian order of magnitude; forget observation), and is there a simple argument why?
 
  • #4
gerald V said:
But, is this the correct sign for bosons? Does current quantum physics think the vacuum energy density of bosons is positive (and huge, namely of Planckian order of magnitude; forget observation), and is there a simple argument why?
Yes, vacuum energy of free bosons is positive. A simple argument is that free bosons behave like a bunch of harmonic oscillators, and it is well known that ground state energy of a quantum harmonic oscillator is positive, ##\hbar\omega/2##.
 

FAQ: Is the Vacuum Energy Density Sign Correct for Bosons?

What is vacuum energy density in the context of bosons?

Vacuum energy density refers to the energy present in empty space due to quantum fluctuations. For bosons, which are particles that follow Bose-Einstein statistics, this energy can be calculated by summing the zero-point energies of all possible modes of the field.

Why is the sign of the vacuum energy density significant?

The sign of the vacuum energy density is crucial because it affects the overall behavior of the universe. A positive vacuum energy density can lead to a repulsive gravitational effect, contributing to the acceleration of the universe's expansion, while a negative sign could imply an attractive effect, potentially leading to a collapse.

How do quantum field theories determine the sign of vacuum energy density?

In quantum field theory, the vacuum energy density is derived from the summation of zero-point energies of all modes of a quantum field. For bosons, these zero-point energies are positive, leading to a positive vacuum energy density. However, the renormalization process, which removes infinities, can sometimes alter the perceived sign and magnitude.

Can the vacuum energy density be measured experimentally?

Direct measurement of vacuum energy density is extremely challenging due to its small magnitude. However, its effects can be inferred indirectly through observations of the universe’s expansion rate, the Casimir effect, and other phenomena that are influenced by quantum fluctuations.

What are the implications of an incorrect sign for vacuum energy density in theoretical models?

An incorrect sign for vacuum energy density in theoretical models can lead to predictions that contradict observational data. For instance, a negative vacuum energy density would suggest a universe that is contracting rather than expanding, which is inconsistent with current cosmological observations. Therefore, getting the sign correct is essential for accurate modeling of the universe.

Similar threads

Back
Top