Talk:Cosmological constant problem

Speculation

Its Possible that the vacuum effect is reduced as the dark matter effect on the possible variable of the quantum field theory is that the dark matter the main compustory of the universe has adverse effects and makes the quantum field theory irreverent to the collection of zero-point energy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaik9a (talk • contribs) 22:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

My Hypothesis is that E = M*C^2 should rule. So M - E =0 at the time just previous to the Big Bang: Zero point theorema. So the Energy at time of Big Bang is in the order of 10^120 J. There is a huge Energy Potential that is only released in special occassions like a Big Bang.

This energy is converted into Matter (max 5% of all Energy now). Energy that wasnt caught by Protons (nucleuses) became dark energy (70% of all Energy now) or in Dark Matter (ca. 25%). Dark energy leaves a very thin energy trail: which was measured by the Voyager.

References http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/vacuum.html

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091019194836AAxLM0E

Jagmulder1972 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

comparison is wrong

"For instance, the statement "the universe consists of exactly one elementary particle" is closer to being true, by at least ten orders of magnitude, than the incorrect vacuum-catastrophe prediction."

Consider that the Standard Model of Cosmology assumes that the size of the universe is infinite. Thus, the statement must necessarily be changed to "the observable universe [...]" --213.144.3.86 (talk) 08:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Article unclear

measured values of the vacuum energy density

There isn't enough detail in this phrase to give it a clear meaning. How are the measurements made? What effects would the vacuum point energy have that could be measured in a conventional way? Are the measurements lab measurements or astrophysical ones? 76.118.180.76 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Cosmological Constant Problem

I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that the cosmological constant problem is the same issue as the vacuum catastrophe. If that's true, I recommend having cosmological constant problem redirect to this article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.174.22 (talk • contribs) 09:54, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions not mentioned here

1. there is a sort of equilibrium that cancels the excessive energy
2. an old dying universe reaches temperatures close to the absolute zero thus somehow that equilibrium breaks off — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4112:2300:D002:1EA0:421E:EE98 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

There's probably nothing there

No vacuum, no fields, even space itself is not a thing to be measured because it's definitively not a thing. "space bends" when interactions happen and if there's nothing going on there is no void to fill either — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:449:8200:A430:483F:9DB0:E740:6D4F (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect grammar

The following sentence in this article does not make grammatical sense: "Light front quantization is a rigorous alternative due to Paul Dirac to the usual second quantization method (instant-form method)." It appears that there should be additional words between "Dirac" and "to". Any ideas?

96.245.40.142 (talk) 06:49, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

miller.ti.ja@gmail.com

Would this make more sense?

(I'm just giving it a shot. I have some insight on the topic at hand, but not an expert, so bear with me.)

Light front quantization provides a rigorous alternate solution(/explanation?) to the cosmological constant problem. Given Paul Dirac's theory on the topic of the usual second quantization method (instant-form method). Rettetasten (talk) 21:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Tagged Incomprehensible

Section has multiple grammatical problems combined with a highly technical subject matter explained like a research paper. Perhaps written by English second language author. Not currently suitable for encyclopedic reference. Tagged with incomprehensible because I didn't want to tag it with multiple tags. It needs to be thoroughly reworded by a specialized expert. (and perhaps have multiple tags) Nemesis75 (talk) 03:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Quantum field theory prediction based on light front quantization" section

What is the issue with this section? Please discuss here. Absolutelypuremilk (talk) 09:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI, the IPs are socks of a community-banned user whose CV is found at WP:LTA/BKFIP. This article is one of his favorite obsessions so I have semi-protected it again, this time for three months. Favonian (talk) 10:34, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Coming in from WikiProject Physics... I doubt the removed text actually belongs, especially at that length. It appears to be a legitimate proposal, but not one that has swept the field away, so spending that many words on it might be giving it undue weight. Without investigating the page history too deeply, I suspect it was significantly shaped by self-promotion. I was also mildly surprised to find some proposals missing, e.g., that of Bill Unruh and collaborators , or the idea that in unimodular gravity the troublesome contributions simply do not gravitate . XOR'easter (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Here is a recent-ish review that might be helpful in overhauling the "proposed solutions" section. XOR'easter (talk) 20:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick re-write to address due-weight concerns. XOR'easter (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Your rewrite is an understandable summary and looks like appropriate weight to me. Nice work. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! XOR'easter (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

A Perturbation Expansion of the EFE

Cornwall is suggesting, in provisional research released on preprint servers, that an expansion of the Einstein Field Equations to the 2nd order in the Stress-Energy Tensor (and 3rd order in the Einstein/Newton constant) is the way to solve the Cosmological Constant problem (Cornwall does consider the Pauli theory on attempted cancellation of Bosonic and Fermionic contributions and notes that this cannot be done). His rationale is that zeropoint energy is a fluctuation at zero particle count (it has a variance but no average) and so it shouldn't properly be included at zeroth order in the SET. It is properly included at 2nd order in a Taylor Expansion of the SET in frequency, where (Δω)² makes sense in describing the fluctuation by its variance. Interestingly what results is some 10^-9 times down on the Cosmological Constant (10^-9 J/m³) as compared to the currently accepted magnitude of the Zeropoint (some 10¹²⁰ J/m³), so Cornwall suggests that there is interaction energy between the modes of the zeropoint to make it some 10⁹ times bigger (i.e. 10¹²⁹ J/m³) in a reasonable model (the electric fields of fluctuation of the modes must interact with one another). He has left a comment (on vixra) that he believe that the radiation damping in the model may fix and limit increase at around 10⁹ and may have something to do with the fine structure constant, which describes the coupling in Electromagnetic theory. It is of note that it is extremely sensitive to this parameter and may explain Cosmic Inflation, if it varied in the past.

References

Elucidation

Hi @Krb19: thanks for the edits. However, I think this edit may not be solving the elucidation part completely, just rephrasing what is already said on the article. What is suggested is to add more details on the inconsistency/incompatibility found in the calculations.--ReyHahn (talk) 20:12, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Hossenfelder's opinion

Sabine Hossenfelder argues in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bl_wGRfbc3w (from 05:43 to 07:10) that there is no such thing as a "cosmological constant problem", because quantum theory does not make a prediction regarding the cosmological constant. Professor Tournesol (talk) 10:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Her interpretation of the matter confuses me. Is she saying that the 10¹²⁰ discrepancy is fabricated or inexistent? Or is she just saying that the discrepancy is just not a prediction because it cannot be measured? .--ReyHahn (talk) 12:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Multiple issues in paragraph

in the paragraph that starts with

"According to the cosmologist Niayesh Afshordi... "

if there is a coherent assertion here it is not apparent The relevance of the assertion also seems to be non existent 2405:201:C030:681E:68A5:4177:A60C:9289 (talk) 16:33, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Good Article

This article is much better now that the above comments have been addressed. It is a balanced overview with the essential references.

Aoosten (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

It is indeed better. However it is still a bit clunky. I think was is mostly missing is absolutes. As it is, it does not give any values to compare with, so expected discrepancy remains unclear.--ReyHahn (talk) 14:16, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Who took out the structures in the universe that prove the cosmological constant is wrong?

First, Edwin Hubbles page and now this? I once came to this page to easily access "Bootes Void" and the "Great Sloan Wall" I think it's called. Where did they go? Who took them off? Someone who is enamored with the worst theory in scientific history? Whatever happens must happen to make sure the education every person on this planet stays correct forever and that includes erasing valuable information that could actually help answer the neverending questions that people love to never answer.

I guess I have to get Wiki to start a page for me so everyone can see the real truth. All these "peer reviewers" shuffling all the info around don't even think about the fact that they don't know any of the answers either. It's all about keeping that education alive. No wonder paradigm shifts are so hard to come by. This insane "expanding universe" crap could go on another 300 years with people manipulating everything. I sure hope no atheists believe in the Big Bang theory. Georges Lamaître is in heaven laughing the hardest at them. 173.95.132.165 (talk) 15:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Theoretical values?

Could somebody provide theoretical values (with their respective hypotheses) for the Estimated values section? Without a proper source the tension between experiment and theory remains unclear. ReyHahn (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I filled in the main modern theoretical estimate. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, moved to the respective section. Do you have any sources on the value given that has 120 orders of discrepancy ? The article that you used does not cite the original calculation that provides such difference.--ReyHahn (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Remove Anthropic Solution

I propose that we delete that anthropic solutions altogether.

As mentioned in the paragraph itself, it is largely derided by the scientific community, and for good reasaon. There is no way to verify it, there's 0 evidence to support it, and to me at least, it seems laughable to include anything related to creationism in a physics article.

Never actually edited wiki pages myself though so I'm not sure if deleting a large chunk of text as my first action would be proper. 59.115.175.211 (talk) 14:45, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

What does the ≘ means ??

What is it called ? ~2026-23021-27 (talk) 15:33, 14 April 2026 (UTC)

In html classification it is called "corresponds to".--ReyHahn (talk) 12:44, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2026-23021-27 (talk) 21:51, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

Undid 11 revisions from 1354503837 until 1355805640

@Sławomir Biały:Is your opinion: go look at cite 7: the url isn't the correct url for the cite description; for example. Cattenion (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I have reverted a collection of edits that really degraded the quality of this article. The main additions appear to be addition of a large collection of mostly low-quality sources, with often large quotations from those sources embedded within them. The edits were also, almost without exception, not consistent with English grammar, and were otherwise poorly written exposition. If some parts of these edits are restored, such as linking cutoff, I suggest doing them in smaller increments rather than embedded in large changes to the article. Other edits can be discussed here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Neither cites 7&8 have the information of the article - the preverted version I added a cite which explicitly shows the information in the article + details the original source where the information is from + in your choice cite 8 isn't shown by the source - I added as the correct source.Cattenion (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

cite 10 this version is the actual source + quote indicating the relevant part. It doesn't indicate "gravity" the source explicitly indicates "radiation energy"; + your problem of quotes is? the quote function exists - what do you suppose my error was using this function? Cattenion (talk) 13:16, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Your choice=this version has re-conflated "CCP" with Vacuum catastrophe - if they were the exact same referent there wouldn't be two names describing this problem - the fact there are two indicates there is a different aspect of the problem to indicate. Your choice of version doesn't indicate any difference. Cattenion (talk) 13:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"mostly low-quality sources" provide evidence the sources are low quality; I could proceed now to provide the contrary - which is the principle I made the effort make sourcing: you make a critical statement but without the evidence is the same as proving something without the proof, where is the proof you think=they are "low-quality" Cattenion (talk) 13:22, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I do not object to every source individually, nor to every small change in the edit. For example, if an existing citation does not support the statement it is attached to, or if a link such as cutoff is useful, those are reasonable fixes to make separately. My objection was to the composite edit. It rewrote the lead in much weaker prose, added a large amount of citation apparatus and quoted material to the opening paragraph, and mixed relatively minor source corrections with broad changes to the article's exposition. The lead should summarize the article and not become a source-by-source reconstruction of the topic. On quotations: the quote parameter exists, but that does not mean every citation should include long quotations. Quotes can be useful when they verify a difficult or controversial point, but excessive quoted material in references can make the article harder to maintain and can substitute for clear article prose. Some of the cited sources are of unclear provenance, being bare pdf links without bibliographic details. The other sources are poorly integrated, and hard to discern. All of this having been said, I am having similar trouble understanding your posts on this talk page as I do with your edits in article space. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:30, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So the evidence of low quality sources is? You decided to revert I didn't find the sources to be low-quality. I'm not satisfied with the current article state (which is why I made the effort to re-source the information). I would think now you could perhaps look to the sources which you specifically think are a problem and indicate how so - at which time I would be able to concur or not Cattenion (talk) 13:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

A citation pile in the lead that includes: Siamak Tafazoli (2021) "Calculation of the Cosmological Constant from Vacuum Energy Density using Zeta Function Regularization", an arxiv source. Probably not appropriate for an overview article at all, and certainly not appropriate for an article lead. Meagher (2004), lecture notes. Neither of these are required for the lead of the article. Not clear even what they are supposed to be supporting. MIT personal explanatory page "Stress-energy tensor", what even is this supposed to support? Rugh Zinkernagel (2002) a good source, but already cited in the body, not needed in the lead, especially not with a long quotation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

My choice was: "the vacuum catastrophe which is QFT for a vacuum applied to the stress-energy tensor of a spacetime vacuum". The current version doesn't indicate the difference of "quantum vacuum" applied to "spacetime" vacuum. Your choice deleted stress-energy tensor which is the reality of "vacuum energy" the source was: Mostepanenko; Klimchitskaya (March 2019). The article now doesn't mention this link. Cattenion (talk) 13:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I don't see the issue, sorry. Perhaps you could explain it more clearly. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:12, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

In the reverted version cite 5: "Taking into account that the vacuum stress-energy tensor...discrepancy" (etc) is a restatement of the definition CCP in version 24/06/2026: 1355903575: "substantial disagreement". In 1355903575 "vacuum energy density" is the same factor as "tensor": AI search "the vacuum stress-energy tensor—which acts as a source of gravity—is proportional to the vacuum energy density." 5 uses "spacetime tensor" in the same context as is used for describing problem factors with "density" (also: R. Van Nieuwenhove "It is shown that it is possible to interpret the Einstein field equation as a relation between the stress-energy tensor of matter and the stress- energy tensor of the vacuum" (quote from On The Vacuum Stress-Energy Tensor in General Relativity 2007), the problem is not only quantity, "momentum" in spacetime is the reality of "-time", "density" is only "space-". Cattenion (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So the article should include "vacuum energy density" (as space) and "vacuum stress energy tensor" (as time) - this seems necessary because : the tensor is "accelerating" (as 5 indicates), alternatively: Einsteins "static universe"? Cattenion (talk) 23:31, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Please stop editing the article. You are mangling the grammar and citations. If there are citations you want included, then list them here, along side what they are supposed to support. You still have not clearly explained why your edits to the article are necessary, but replacing proper English sentences which convey the same information with ungrammatical attrocities such as "The idea of the existence of empty-space zero-point radiation energy was made by Walther Nernst in 1916" is damaging to the article. Changing existing named references also appears to be doing damage. And I still have no clue what problem you are trying to fix. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Undid 15 revisions from 1355881429 until 1355889501. What principle you're applying these changes? The sources at version 14:13, 24 May 2026 show the same informations as existed in the article. What was the problem you found? You previously replaced "gravitational effect" with "zero-point radiation energy" which obviously I concur is correct because this is what the sources (which I re-included subsequently) show, what could be the reason/cause to re-add information not shown in the sources. As concerns your criticism of "ungrammatical" - the grammar isn't erroneous. Cattenion (talk) 14:29, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

You reverted that change. I have no objection to that particular change, but a rewrite of the sentence to "The idea of the existence of empty-space zero-point radiation energy was made by Walther Nernst in 1916" is not grammatically appropriate for the English Wikipedia. I went back to the last stable version of the article so you can discuss your proposed revisions one at a time. Please do so more clearly. You can propose existing text, and replacement text, for example, using the {{tq}} template if you like. The principle I applied is reverting to the last stable revision of something (WP:STABLE). Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What now is your suggestion. My problem was you changed the article information (to show valid information) but kept the sources in when sources which show the actual information exists. The preference for actually viewable sources is that others could 1. Reasearch after 2. Validate=view the sources to know the information is correct. Cattenion (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

What I have already suggested. What source is needed to support what statement? If a statement does not agree with a source, propose what the statement should be, and what sources you would recommend. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"empty-space zero-point radiation energy" I understand could be difficult to read and separate the parts to think the indicated/signified meaning - but the choice to make this syntax is possible in English Cattenion (talk) 14:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

"have no clue what problem you are trying to fix" - my problem, which I thought was the same as your problem: because you made the same change to "radiation energy", is that the information in it's current state "gravitational effect" - 1. the Introduction) doesn't introduce the subject "gravitational" it does indicate "vacuum"+"energy" so proceeding to mention in the 1st instance "g." as being relevant to the introduced subject doesn't show how "gravity" is relevant to the subject. There's no way to connect vacuum energy in the introduction to gravity effect in the History section. 2. The sources don't actually indicate gravitational effect they do indicate zero-point vacuum radiation energy. I would think these facts would be obvious. Cattenion (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So this edit (which you reverted) fully resolves the matter? That Lenz connected it to gravity is supported by the cited Kragh source, and I put that in to transition. You seem to disagree, for reasons that you have not clearly explained. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:44, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Kragh arXiv:1111.4623 doesn't mention / show "gravity" Cattenion (talk) 14:48, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The other Kragh source doesn't show gravity either Cattenion (talk) 14:50, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Kragh (2012) explicitly says that Lenz was looking at the gravitational effects of zero-point radiation energy when he came up with the cited quotation. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Both sources above are 2012 but you have indicated one shows the relevant information. I don't see the word "gravity" or any variation of the word in 1111.4623 = 2012. If you see some other reality in the source you're looking at - and obviously I accept the reality gravity as a factor could be included - without the source for me or anyone else to review how do you propose to show therefore prove therefore indicate this factor in the article? Cattenion (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

oh actually I only now realized 1111.4623 is not an abstract. Cattenion (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Walther Nernst: grandfather of dark energy? Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:02, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

Is an Abstract in my version. Cattenion (talk) 15:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

But... this shouldn't be a problem because the source being Nernst 1916 (though since I can't view j.1468-4004.2012.53124.x perhaps there is some other factor not included currently) all we need to do is view 1916 and if there is no mention of "g" in there then I would think exclude this. Cattenion (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

So I re- scan read Nernst 1916 - which is only 7 pages, so in review, again, I didn't see=find "gravity" or variation of Cattenion (talk) 15:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The word gravity or variation of I didn't find in 1111.4623 pages 24-37 Cattenion (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

I was just thinking - it would be nice if 4 could be replaced with the actual+translation as in this version, would you object to such a change? Cattenion (talk) 23:05, 26 May 2026 (UTC) @Sławomir Biały: obviously nice is not a valid cause for any change in this context, but providing the sources does help to confirm and aid research, though my reason was: the current position only provides an indication - there isn't any benefit (or much at all) in using the url link; I suppose the position could be eliminated completely on this basis, though I don't suggest the latter Cattenion (talk) 23:09, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

 Done That seems possibly useful. Sławomir Biały (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

You validated 1916 with the statement "was noted by Wilhelm Lenz" but those sources don't prove your statement + Lenz (1926) has a cite template error in the url. Cattenion (talk) 15:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

The source is Kragh (2012), and it validates 1926 not 1916. Do you mean that the 1926 citation was missing a title field? I have corrected that, and deleted the incorrect URL. For what it's worth, Kragh (2011) and (2012) jointly support that this was about cosmology (2011) and gravitation (2012). Lenz's 1926 paper is explicitly about cosmology, and discusses the curvature of spacetime. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2026 (UTC)

As I indicated above "other" I couldn't verify because that source isn't available - but I have currently found the tensor equates to gravity - my thoughts though are: the problem is energy quantity, if tensor equates to -time, stating "density" in spacetime this provides that energy exists in the 1st factor (space-) so must exist in the 2nd, wouldn't this seem obvious that it wouldn't need to be stated? Cattenion (talk) 23:54, 24 May 2026 (UTC)