Skip to main content

Dark photons and the Universal ground-state energy

 In a previous post we introduced the idea that our current Universe has boundary conditions.   
Generated image
Classical 1+1 dS space-time visualized as basketball hoop, with the up/down slam-dunk direction being the time dimension, and the hoop circumference the space dimension.   

We also showed a diagram similar to Figure 1 below. Except here, we are once again thinking about the future dS state.

Figure 1. For an observer at O inside the cosmic event horizon (CEH) with radius $l_{\Lambda}$, the universe can be divided into two sub-vacuums, $(A)$ inside the CEH, and $(B)$, outside. The horizon surface $\Sigma$ has entanglement entropy $S_{dS}$ and rest energy $E_H$

 
Figure 2. The maximum entropy of the Universe (credit: Lineweaver).  

Now, a comoving volume partition of the Universe can be treated as a closed system for which $dS \geq0$. The maximum entropy of a closed system, in this case  (Figure 2) with $L=2 \pi l_{\Lambda}$, the circumference of a circle with radius  $l_{\Lambda}$,  is obtained when all the energy $E_{H}$ within the system is worked, i.e. degraded into the smallest bits possible. All energy is converted into minimal energy dark photons with wavelengths as large as the system $L$. From the Compton wavelength relation, the minimum quanta of energy $E_{s}$ of this system is then: \begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\frac{hc}{\lambda_{max}}=\frac{\hslash c}{l_{\Lambda}}=m_{s}c^2
\end{equation}

A long time ago, Wesson conjectured that in a Universe with a positive cosmological constant, there must be a quantum-scale rest mass $m_p$. In fact, it is fairly simple to show that $m_p=m_s=m_{GR}$ (Wesson used the Planck constant, as he was only utilizing dimensional analysis), and $m_{GR}$ was discussed in this post.  In 2014, Barrow and Gibbons confirmed this lower-bound analysis, and also pointed out that the classical upper bound $m_{PE}=m_0$ for any mass in a Universe with a positive cosmological constant is (here $m_{CEH}$ is the mass of the cosmic event horizon of our Figure 1 system):   \begin{equation}m_{0} = \frac{c^{2}}{G}\sqrt{\frac{3}{\Lambda }} =\frac{c^2 l_{\Lambda}}{G}=2 \ m_{CEH} 
\end{equation} As we know from cosmological observations that $m_{CEH}$ is the observed (effective) mass of the CEH, I posit that $m_{0}$ is unphysical (aka unobservable), and therefore is a "bare" mass. 

Now, quantum field theory can be formulated in terms of harmonic oscillators. So, if we consider our Figure 1 system as a quantum harmonic oscillator,  with $E_s = m_s c^2$ as the ground state (zero-point) energy and  $\omega_{s}$ being the ground state angular frequency.    
\begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\hslash \frac{\omega_{s}}{2}
\end{equation}  Now, the de Broglie relation is then:
\begin{equation}
\notag
E_{s}=\hslash \omega_{B}
\end{equation} As  $\omega_{s}=2\omega_{B}$ we might consider $\omega_{s}$ as the zitter frequency of vacuum. Things get even more interesting when we realise that  $\omega_{B} = c/l_{\Lambda} =H$ implying that the Hubble Constant can be considered as a `de Broglie'  (or effective) frequency of vacuum; or equivalently, that time is a geometric property of space.   

Wait, I hear some of you saying, $H_0$ is usually presented as (km/s/Mpa) rather than ($s^{-1}$),  and you are right, but that simply due to cosmologists confusing things, using more convenient units. 

Now, Rugh and Zinkernagel's  paper from 2000 works out the QFT vacuum energy density from a quantum harmonic oscillator in a box, where $\rho^{QFT}_{vac} \ c^2 = E/V$: 

 

This zero-point vacuum energy density is a "bare" result, i.e. before interactions are considered. If we consider the QFT framework is valid up to the Planck energy scale, the standard approach is to insert $E_{Planck}=\hbar \ w_{max}$  into the QFT calculation above, which gives:

\begin{equation}
\rho^{QFT}_{vac} \ c^2 = \frac{c^7}{8 \pi^2 \hbar G^2}
\end{equation} The expression on the RHS is the famous cosmological constant problem, i.e. this result is 120 orders of magnitude greater than the observed vacuum energy density! The observed vacuum density $\rho^{obs}_{vac}$ is the CEH rest mass-energy divided by the volume of a sphere with radius $l_{\Lambda}$ i.e. our Figure 1 system:

\begin{equation}
\rho^{obs}_{vac} \ c^2 = \frac{3 \ m_{CEH} \ c^2}{4\pi l_{\Lambda}^3} =  \frac{c^4 \Lambda} {8 \pi G}
\end{equation} We have previously associated  $l_{\Lambda}=c/H$ as the de Sitter characteristic length scale, associated with the future de Sitter Hubble constant $H$. The other de-Sitter like epoch of our Universe was just before inflation, i.e. Planck energy scale, where $l_{\Lambda}=2L_{Planck}$.  In this post we showed how the reduced Planck constant is the angular momentum of our quantum scale rest mass $m_s$:

\begin{equation}
\hbar = \frac{l_\Lambda^2 c^3}{4G} = m_s \ l_\Lambda \ c
\end{equation} If we associate $l_\Lambda$ with $\Lambda$ and substitute for $\hbar$ into the QFT vacuum energy result we get:

\begin{equation}
\rho^{QFT}_{vac} \ c^2 = \frac{m_{CEH} \ c^2}{l_{\Lambda}^3 \pi^2}
\end{equation} With $l_{\Lambda}=c/H \approx 1.5\times 10^{26}$m we now have the same order of magnitude from the QFT result and the observed vacuum energy density. This was also pointed out by Ali et al in their paper, although they didn't realise the de Sitter connection.  Of course, the above QFT equation needs a "correction factor" to give the observed vacuum density exactly:  

\begin{equation}
\rho_{vac} \ c^2 = \frac{ m_{CEH} \ c^2}{l_{\Lambda}^3 \pi^2} \frac{3\pi}{4}  = \frac{c^4 \Lambda} {8 \pi G}
\end{equation}

Presto, no more cosmological constant problem. The vacuum energy density being contingent on the future Hubble horizon (or varying Hubble horizon with some extra tweaks), is also how the holographic dark energy model solves the cosmological constant problem.  For more, you can also read this post.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blurring the horizon - the quantum width of the cosmic event horizon

A 2021 paper by Zurek applied a random walk argument to a black hole horizon. Credit, Zurek, 2021   Zurek called this a blurring of the horizon — a fuzzy, or uncertain horizon — and went through derivations supporting the idea that this length scale is the quantum uncertainty in the position of the black hole horizon: a dynamic quantum width of an event horizon. This is a concept which fundamentally applies to the Universe's own Cosmic Event Horizon (CEH). The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy gives the number of quantum degrees of freedom that can fluctuate. Below, we step out our own cosmic de Sitter derivation of the random walk argument. To do this, let $l_{\Lambda}$ represent the generalised de Sitter horizon scale. Due to the holographic UV/IR correspondence, this scale manifests dually: at the fundamental microscopic limit as $l_{UV} = 2L_p$, and at the macroscopic cosmological limit as $l_{IR} = c/H$. By mapping between these conformal boundaries, we can derive the limits of the...
Post a Comment
Read more

De Sitter Horizons One Radius to Rule Them All

  As we know , de Sitter spacetime is a one-parameter thermodynamic system : every state variable is a power of the single horizon radius $l_\Lambda$. This has profound consequences for thermodynamics, information theory, and quantum chaos.     Key results: Smarr relation: $M = (D-1)TS$ (exact for all $D \geq 3$) First law: $dM = (D-2)T dS$ (exact for all $D$) Extended first law $dM = TdS + VdP$ fails except at $D=4$ (numerical coincidence) Pressure ratio: $|\Delta P|/|P_{vac}| = 2/D$ (exact) Ruppeiner metric: $g^{Rupp}_{VV} > 0$ (1D state-space curvature, not stability) Heat capacity: $C_P = -(D-1)S < 0$ (thermal instability) Classical fidelity: $F = 2/(D+1) \approx 2/D$ (asymptotic) Elastic analogy for $D=3$ explains why extended first law fails All results follow from one scale: $\kappa = 1/l_\Lambda$ 1. Setup and Natural Units Converting to SI Units When restoring physical constants: $$\begin{align} S &= \frac{k_B A c^3}{4 G \hbar}\ T &= \frac{\h...
Post a Comment
Read more

Our cosmic event horizon on a string

In this post, we introduced the idea that in the presence of a positive cosmological constant, there is a minimum (local) mass $m_{GR}$   McDormand swinging a cosmic light-like mass-energy $m_{GR}$, with a "cosmic string" of radius $l_{\Lambda}$, giving a centripetal force $F_{local}=m_{GR} \ c^2/l_{\Lambda}$.    Let's think about that string for a bit. In fact, a great number of physicists have spent their entire careers tied up unraveling string theory . For a classical string, which lives in D = 10 dimensions, associated with Nambu-Goto action, the the string tension $T_G$ is a local force, or energy per unit length (dimensions $MLT^{-2}$): \begin{equation} \notag T_G = \frac{1}{2\pi \alpha \prime} \end{equation}$\alpha \prime$ is the Regge slope parameter, set here with dimensions of inverse force.  The wavelength of the stringy mass-energy standing wave (such that it does not interfere with itself), is the circumference of the circle, and we know it moves...
Post a Comment
Read more