2
$\begingroup$

The cosmological constant problem roughly states that the predicted value of $\Lambda$ becomes mostly infinite even though we only measure negligible values for it.

In classic General Relativity, the zero-point energy of a system is identically zero, so if there are zero particles then there is zero energy. In the case of QFT the Hamiltonian of a vacuum state tends to diverge. This would, in principle, infinitely curve spacetime producing the net effect of an infinite expansion.

Nonetheless, one could break down the total energy-momentum tensor $\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}$ into its classical $T_{\mu\nu}$ version and a quantum mechanical one $\Psi_{\mu\nu}$ that includes the divergence corresponding to the zero-point energy of the quantum system. Now, given that the diverging Hamiltonian is independent of spacetime coordinates then we should have

$$\Psi_{\mu\nu} = \xi g_{\mu\nu},$$

So we can “renormalize” the theory’s Lagrangian by including this diverging term into the action

$$S = \int{\sqrt{-g}\left[\frac{1}{2\kappa}R + \frac{\Lambda}{\kappa} + \mathcal{L}_m - \xi\right]},$$

(here using the mostly minus convention). The EFEs become

$$G_{\mu\nu} = \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} + \kappa \mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu} - \xi\kappa g_{\mu\nu} = \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} + \kappa T_{\mu\nu}.$$

Could this renormalization procedure help with the cosmological constant problem? Is it equal to normal-ordering the right hand side?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ "the zero-point energy of a system is identically zero, so if there are zero particles then there is zero energy" - that's the thing, even in $m=0$ flat spacetime, accounting for the cosmological constant gives a small vacuum energy (which does not align with what is predicted with QFT). I don't know enough about the specifics of vacuum QFT to talk about it but that's the note I have to add. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 25 at 22:31
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ This question is similar to: Can the cosmological constant problem be solved by imposing that the renormalized value matches the observed value?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. $\endgroup$
    – my2cts
    Commented Nov 25 at 23:01
  • $\begingroup$ The "cosmological constant problem" is a non-problem, consider $\Lambda$ as a fundamental constant and the problem vanishes. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 26 at 4:15
  • $\begingroup$ @JeanbaptisteRoux There is no $\Lambda$, it’s an artifact of the failed Friedmann cosmology. $\endgroup$
    – safesphere
    Commented Dec 2 at 18:04

0