Can the fact that the vacuum energy in curved spacetime is not boost invariant be explained without mathematics?

I read in an answer to a question if Hawking radiation can be explained without too much mathematics that this is impossible insofar the vacuum energy is not boost invariant in a curved spacetime. Different observers in a curved spacetime see a different vacuum energy density. Hawking made in his 1975 paper a rigorous mathematical derivation of this fact.

In popular science, this is made clear without mathematics, by the popping in and out of existence in the vacuum of pairs of particles, one with positive and one with negative energy. On the event horizon (where the temperature is very high) these two are separated. The one with the negative energy disappears into the black hole, the other one comes out as Hawking radiation.

Isn't it possible to say that the vacuum energy depends on the metric of spacetime, and therefore on the varying curvature, which makes energy flow?

bumped to the homepage by Community♦2 days ago

This question has answers that may be good or bad; the system has marked it active so that they can be reviewed.

• How would you even state the notion of "Lorentz invariance" "without mathematics"? – ACuriousMind May 2 '16 at 18:06
• If a physical law has the same form in every inertial system then the law is Lorenz invariant. This is not the case in a curved spacetime, considering the vacuüm density. – descheleschilder May 2 '16 at 18:51
• What do you mean by Lorentz invariance in curved spacetimes? – Prahar May 2 '16 at 18:59
• In popular science, this is made "clear", sure, but the explanation is misleading and wrong. – Ryan Unger May 2 '16 at 19:04
• It seems pretty obvious what descheleschilder is asking. My answer to the question he alludes to mentions that the QFT vacuum is unchanged by a Lorentz boost, however it is not invariant for observers in a curved spacetime. He is asking if that statement can be justified without too much maths. I suspect not because an answer would have to explain what a Bogoliubov transformation is without any maths and I'm unsure if that is possible. However I might give it a go if time permits. In the mean time I think the downvoters should reconsider their downvotes. – John Rennie May 2 '16 at 19:05