Advertisement

Journal of Low Temperature Physics

, Volume 124, Issue 1–2, pp 25–39 | Cite as

Vacuum Energy and Cosmological Constant: View from Condensed Matter

  • G. E. Volovik
Article

Abstract

The condensed matter examples, in which the effective gravity appears in thelow-energy corner as one of the collective modes of quantum vacuum, providea possible answer to the question, why the vacuum energy is so small. Thisanswer comes from the fundamental “trans-Planckian” physics of quantum liquids. In the effective theory of the low energy degrees of freedom the vacuum energy density is proportional to the fourth power of the corresponding“Planck” energy appropriate for this effective theory. However, from the exact “Theory of Everything” of the quantum liquid it follows that its vacuum energy density is exactly zero without fine tuning, if: there are no external forces acting on the liquid; there are no quasiparticles which serve as matter; no space-time curvature; and no boundaries which give rise to the Casimireffect. Each of these four factors perturbs the vacuum state and induces anonzero value of the vacuum energy density, which is on the order of theenergy density of the perturbation. This is the reason, why one must expectthat in each epoch the vacuum energy density is on the order of the matterdensity of the Universe, or/and of its curvature, or/and of the energy density of the smooth component–the quintessence.

Keywords

Energy Density Magnetic Material External Force Vacuum State Fine Tuning 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    R.B. Laughlin and D. Pines, The Theory of Everything, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sc. USA 97, 28-31 (2000).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    C.D. Frogatt and H.B. Nielsen, Origin of Symmetry, World Scientific, Singapore-New Jersey-London-Hong Kong, 1991.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    S. Chadha, and H.B. Nielsen, Lorentz invariance as a low-energy phenomenon, Nucl. Phys. B 217, 125-144 (1983).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    G.E. Volovik, Superfluid analogies of cosmological phenomena, to appear in Phys. Rept. [gr-qc/0005091].Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    W.G. Unruh, Experimental black-hole evaporation?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 46, 1351-1354 (1981); W.G. Unruh, Sonic analogue of black holes and the effects of high frequencies on black hole evaporation, Phys. Rev. D 51, 2827–2838 (1995); M. Visser, Acoustic black holes: horizons, ergospheres, and Hawking radiation, Class. Quant. Grav. 15, 1767–1791 (1998).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. Stone, Phonons and forces: momentum versus pseudomomentum in moving fluids, cond-mat/0012316.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problem, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1-23 (1989); S. Weinberg, The cosmological constant problems, astro-ph/0005265.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Polarski, Accelerated expansion: Theory and observations, J. Low Temp. Phys., this issue.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Supernova Cosmology Project (S. Perlmutter et al.), Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517, 565-586 (1999).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C.W. Woo, Microscopic calculations for condensed phases of helium, in The Physics of Liquid and Solid Helium, Part I, eds. K.H. Bennemann and J.B. Ketterson, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    F. Ravndal, Problems with the Casimir vacuum energy, hep-ph/0009208.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. D. Bjorken, Standard model parameters and the cosmological constant, hep-ph/0103349.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    R.R. Caldwell, R. Dave, and P.J. Steinhardt, Cosmological imprint of an energy component with general equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582-1585 (1998).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    M.S. Turner and M. White, CDM models with a smooth component, Phys. Rev. D 56, R4439-R4443 (1997).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. Vollhardt, and P. Wölfle, The superfluid phases of helium 3, Taylor and Francis, London-New York-Philadelphia, 1990.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    G. Chapline, E. Hohlfeld, R.B. Laughlin, and D.I. Santiago, Quantum phase transitions and the breakdown of classical general relativity, gr-qc/0012094.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    A. Einstein, Kosmologische Betrachtungen zur allgemeinen Relativitätstheorie, Sitzungsber. Konigl. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. 1, 142-152 (1917).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. E. Volovik
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Low Temperature LaboratoryHelsinki University of TechnologyFinland
  2. 2.L.D. Landau Institute for Theoretical PhysicsMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations