Preprint Article Version 2 This version is not peer-reviewed

A Rough Calculation Relating the Extremely Small Cosmological Constant to the Extremely Large QFT Vacuum Energy Density

Version 1 : Received: 10 January 2019 / Approved: 11 January 2019 / Online: 11 January 2019 (14:23:40 CET)
Version 2 : Received: 11 January 2019 / Approved: 14 January 2019 / Online: 14 January 2019 (12:23:21 CET)

How to cite: Cornwall, R. A Rough Calculation Relating the Extremely Small Cosmological Constant to the Extremely Large QFT Vacuum Energy Density. Preprints 2019, 2019010113 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0113.v2). Cornwall, R. A Rough Calculation Relating the Extremely Small Cosmological Constant to the Extremely Large QFT Vacuum Energy Density. Preprints 2019, 2019010113 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201901.0113.v2).

Abstract

This enquiry follows the investigation into a propulsion system purportedly utilising the QED vacuum as reactive momenergy. The QFT vacuum is contentious because the “naïve” value for it is extraordinarily large, yet on the cosmic scale it is hardly present. This begs the question as to whether it is really real and further highlights the problem between General Relativity on very large scales, with Quantum Mechanics on very small scales. We find a mathematical procedure that: to the 1st order removes the “embarrassing” QFT vacuum constant from the Einstein tensor and then covers nearly all of the 120 orders of magnitude difference between the Cosmological Constant and Vacuum Energy by introducing it as an higher order correction in (G/c4)3. There is a proviso for further work, that the difference of a few orders we calculate, might be made up by considering fluctuations or running constants in the QFT vacuum and Cosmic Inflation.

Subject Areas

Cosmological constant, QFT vacuum, Perturbation expansion, Einstein tensor

Comments (2)

Comment 1
Received: 27 January 2019
Commenter: Remi Cornwall
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am the author leaving comments for people to see my thinking and working for a next version of the paper.
Comment: I would like to leave a comment for people (please don't delete because it is from author). I know the result is dimensionally flawed and I would like to show my thinking:-


A few notes on the work in progress and a guess by dimensional analysis of the result we aim for:

We want to integrate the third term and get something like k^3.Tuv but this is dimensionally incorrect, we would need a factor k^3.Tuv.Factor with units (J/m)^2 or N^2 or (m kg / s^2)^2

Perhaps we might write N^2 as (Nm / m)^2 and seek three factors, one N/m^2, Nm and m.

What would they be? Perhaps the 1st would be pressure or energy density, the 2nd a moment or Energy, (what do we do with the final m?).

What does it all mean? What can it be? The easiest way would be to have (kTuv)^3 suitably contracted but we would find pvac cubed and the whole point of the hunch is to get k^3 * pvac.QFT -> 1 (still a billion off but much better and discussed in the paper as to how we might be missing some vacuum energy)
I suggested the 1st and 2nd factors but their magnitudes (contracted down) would have to be 1 < magnitude < 10^9. It can't be p from the stress energy tensor for the vacuum energy, modelled as an ideal fluid as pvac = p. Perhaps when we contract down/take the trace of the SE of the ideal fluid it isn't pvac - 3p = 0 when taken in global co-ords of the problem (see comment below about integration path and that space is curving along the path)?

What could the 2nd suggestion of the factor be as an energy? Well we are dealing in tensor densities, so that would be odd. Perhaps, as by the paper, I perform an integration path from a volume with a classical vacuum to a real vacuum (alright, not real but a mathematical trick), so it could be the total energy over this (infinitesimal) integration path. Perhaps I could start thinking about a flow of momenergy into the region from the classical space to the real vacuum as modelled...

All very hunchy, very intuitive at the moment. Of course, the whole approach could be wrong... Cubing k^3 gets close but it's still 10^9 out...

Creative guessing = heuristics.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 27 January 2019
Commenter: Remi Cornwall
Commenter's Conflict of Interests: I am the author leaving a comment for my thought processes on what is wrong with the paper. Please leave the comments.
Comment: One further note from author. Please keep to show what I am working on with the paper.

I am trying to link vacuum energy with the cosmological constant by the trick of moving from a space with a purely classical vacuum (no QFT vacuum) to one with it. Imagine you are an observer and pass into a region with this ideal fluid... The aim is to perturbatively model this and have the large vacuum constant enter as third order in k (as in k^3.Tuv.Factors) by doing an expansion in Tuv about a point with x = k.deltaTuv. I might then "integrate up" (hence the Factors) and have higher order expressions for Tuv. It gets "close" and suggests that vacuum energy might be higher than calculated from QFT for extra degrees of freedom.

I might be able to get some factor to k^3 by considering (from the point of view of the observer) the flow of momenergy into his environment for the QFT vacuum modelled as an ideal fluid.

We encourage comments and feedback from a broad range of readers. See criteria for comments and our diversity statement.

Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 2
Metrics 0


×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.