-1
$\begingroup$

I understand that the equation of state of the vacuum is assumed to be $P = -\rho$ due to the Lorentz invariance of its stress-energy tensor. But this argument assumes flat spacetime. We know at cosmological scales that spacetime is not flat.

I was wondering whether the true cosmological vacuum equation of state is $P_{\rm vac} = - (1/3) \rho_{\rm vac}$.

Consider two parallel co-moving conducting plates in space whose separation distance scales with the scale factor $a(t)$.

The Casimir effect states that the pressure between the plates, $P_{\rm inside}$, is:

$$P_{\rm inside} \propto - 1 / a^4.$$

Therefore the pressure outside the plates $P_{\rm outside}$ is given by

$$P_{\rm outside} \propto 1 / a^4$$

If the equation of state of the fluid outside the plates is $P_{\rm outside} = w \rho_{\rm outside}$ then

$$\rho_{\rm outside} \propto 1 / a^4$$

Using the relationship

$$\rho \propto a^{-3[1+w]}$$

We find that the equation of state of the fluid outside the plates is

$$P_{\rm outside} = (1/3) \rho_{\rm outside}$$

Therefore the equation of state of the vacuum inside the plates is

$$P_{\rm inside} = - (1/3) \rho_{\rm inside}$$

Therefore

$$P_{\rm vac} = - (1/3) \rho_{\rm vac}$$

Does this argument make sense?

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Haven't you already posted this exact question some time ago? As you have already been told, just because equations for the Casimir effect and for the FLRW metric use the same symbol $a$ this does not mean that those are the same quantity. $\endgroup$
    – A.V.S.
    Commented Jan 8 at 18:56

1 Answer 1

0
$\begingroup$

I think this arguments kinda holds. However it is always a bit risky to associate $\Lambda$ with the Casimir effect, as the cosmological constant arise in GR which is a classical field theory without any quantum considerations. It is yet unclear how $\Lambda$ can be treated consistently in a quantum way (and if it is the quantum field's vacuum energy), as there is no consensual quantum theory of gravity. The equation of state for $\Lambda$ arises solely from GR and the considerations about the stress-energy tensor you are referring to. This however does not require to assume that the space-time is flat. It solely comes from the fact that 1) space-time is locally Minkowskian (always true in GR) 2) Dark energy behaves as a perfect fluid (assumption comings from the cosmological principle) i.e. space must be homogeneous and isotropic on large scales.

The derivation goes roughly like this: (for more detail have a look at classical cosmology textbooks as Dodelson or Peter & Uzan)

A) In Einstein equation $G = 8\pi G T - \Lambda g$, you can consider that the term -Lambda g is the stress energy tensor associated to the cosmological constant $T_\Lambda = - \Lambda/(8\pi G) g$. B) The cosmological principle assumes that all components of the Universes behaves as perfect fluids on large scales to preserve homogeneity and isotropy. As such, the stress-energy tensors of these components should be perfect fluid stress-energy tensors. C) Now you should always be able to find locally a frame in which the metric is diagonal and in which $T$ can be expressed as diag($-\rho,p,p,p$). From there you can derive the equation of state for dark energy without assuming anything about a flat space-time. The only thing you have to assume is homogeneity and isotropy of space, which is a fundamental building block of cosmology, from which almost all of the considerations about dark energy are derived.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ When one considers test volumes to argue about how the density of cosmological fluids change with time one considers co-moving volumes that can be at a cosmological scale. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 8 at 16:49
  • $\begingroup$ But in C) you assume that locally spacetime is flat. But at cosmological scales spacetime is not flat. In standard cosmology when one derives the dependence of the energy density on scale factor one assumes a co-moving volume of space that does expand as the universe expands. Therefore in bulk this volume of space is not Minkowski spacetime as it’s expanding. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 11 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ This is not an extra assumption but a ingredient at the foundation of general relativity and in the definition of what is a (semi)-Riemannian manifold. Whatever you are doing in GR, even in extreme conditions near a black hole, you should always be able to find a frame transformation in which the metric is the Minkowski metric (even in loop quantum gravity or whatever) which correspond to free falling frames. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 12 at 9:03

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.