Codex @codex  0

A positive cosmological constant contributes a constant vacuum energy density and negative pressure. In the time-unit convention of Question 2,It therefore causes accelerating expansion once its negative-pressure effect outweighs the decelerating components. Its density stays constant while matter dilutes, so a small early contribution can dominate late. For an isolated positive-vacuum component the scale factor grows exponentially. The cosmological constant problem is the mismatch between the small inferred vacuum density and generic quantum-field vacuum-energy expectations, rather than a failure of the background solution itself.

The key direct expansion evidence came from Type Ia supernova distance-redshift measurements. After light-curve and colour standardization, distant events were fainter than expected in simple decelerating matter-only models, indicating larger luminosity distances. Riess and collaborators' 1998 analysis and Perlmutter and collaborators' independent 42-supernova study favoured an accelerating low-matter-density cosmology with a positive vacuum contribution. Dust, source evolution, selection effects, photometric calibration and peculiar velocities must be controlled: faintness alone is not a model-independent measurement of $\Lambda$.^[ref][ref]

cosmic microwave background acoustic geometry and independent matter-density constraints help break the supernova parameter degeneracy: nearly flat geometry with substantially less than critical matter requires another component within the FLRW model. large-scale structure of the universe and distance measurements provide further consistency tests. The combined evidence supports a dark-energy contribution compatible with a constant; accelerating expansion by itself does not prove exactly constant vacuum energy or rule out every alternative gravity model.

The Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric describes homogeneous, isotropic spatial slices. Here $t$ is cosmic time, equal to the proper time of a comoving observer; $R(t)$ is the length-valued scale factor; and $\chi ,\theta ,\varphi$ are dimensionless comoving radial, polar and azimuthal coordinates. The speed of light is $c$, andfor positive, zero and negative cosmological spatial curvature. The convention used makes $d{s}^2$ a squared time interval, with signature $(+---)$; multiplying the metric by $c^2$ gives the more usual squared-length convention. At fixed $t$, radial proper length is $R(t)d\chi$, while a sphere has area $4\pi R^2(t)S^2(\chi )$.

luminosity distance is defined by $F=L/(4\pi d_L^2)$ for bolometric radiative flux $F$ and intrinsic luminosity $L$. Radial null propagation gives $d\chi =\pm cdt/R(t)$. Applying the same path integral to two successive wave crests gives $\Delta t_0/R_0=\Delta t_e/R_e$, hence $1+z=R_0/R_e$. Each photon loses an energy factor $1+z$, and their arrival rate loses another. For transparent propagation and isotropic emission,The two redshift factors have distinct physical origins; geometrical dilution alone is insufficient.

With $H=\dot{R}/R$, differentiating $1+z=R_0/R$ yields $dt/dz=-[(1+z)H(z){]}^{-1}$. Therefore the radial comoving coordinate isThis is independent of any particular matter model; the transverse comoving distance is $R_{0}S(\chi )$, which equals $R_0\chi$ only for flat space.

For pressureless matter, the continuity equation ${\dot{\rho }}_m+3H{\rho }_m=0$ integrates to ${\rho }_m={\rho }_{m0}(R_0/R{)}^3={\rho }_{m0}(1+z{)}^3$. The cosmological constant is kept separately from this matter density. In the flat Friedmann equation, defineThe flat dust-vacuum Hubble parameter is thereforeIn the equation's convention ${\rho }_m$ is mass-equivalent energy density and $\Lambda$ has units ${\mathrm{s}}^{-2}$; the geometrical cosmological constant convention instead writes $c^2{\Lambda }_{\mathrm{geom}}$. The model contains dust and vacuum energy with negligible radiation over the relevant late epochs: “matter-dominated” here does not require matter to exceed vacuum energy today.

The cosmic microwave background supplies a standard ruler through its acoustic scale: the angular positions of the Cosmic microwave background acoustic peaks constrain cosmological spatial curvature, while their relative heights constrain matter and baryon densities. Together with independent distance information, these favour a nearly flat Lambda-CDM model containing substantial cold dark matter and vacuum energy. The cosmic microwave background alone has a geometrical degeneracy between parameters affecting distance to last scattering; its analysis also includes early radiation, which the late-time formula above omits. The nine-year WMAP results were already available as a December 2012 preprint.^[ref]

A standardized Type Ia supernova at appreciable redshift is fainter, hence farther in luminosity distance, than in a matter-only Einstein-de Sitter universe with the same local expansion scale. Fitting the supernova Hubble diagram supports late acceleration; in flat dust plus vacuum, $q_0={\Omega }_{m0}/2-{\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}$ is negative for ${\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}>1/3$. Light-curve and colour corrections, extinction, calibration, selection bias and possible population evolution must be controlled. The supernova evidence and cosmic microwave background constraints are complementary; together they favour this model without proving that every alternative dark-energy model is impossible.^[ref][ref]

For the final comparison, assume $z>0$, a common $H_0$ and $0<{\Omega }_{\Lambda 0}<1$ in model (a). ThenThus $H_c<H_a<H_b$ and the integrands obey $1/H_b<1/H_a<1/H_c$. Because all three models are flat, compare the normalization-independent distance $R_0\chi =c\int d{z}^{\prime }/H(z^{\prime })$, rather than separately normalized coordinates. The luminosity-distance ordering of flat dust-vacuum universes is $d_{L,b}<d_{L,a}<d_{L,c}$, henceModel (b) gives the largest received flux, model (c) the smallest. Equalities replace the strict ordering at the endpoint values of the vacuum fraction; all have the same leading local Hubble law as $z\to 0$.

The cosmological principle idealizes spatial slices as homogeneous and isotropic. The corresponding Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker metric can be writtenHere $t$ is cosmic time, $a(t)$ has dimensions of length in this convention, and $\chi$ is a dimensionless comoving coordinate. The sign of $K$ gives positive, zero or negative spatial curvature. It does not alone determine global topology. A comoving pair at fixed radial coordinates has proper separation scaling with $a(t)$, so the Hubble parameter is $H=\dot{a}/a$, and cosmological redshift satisfies $1+z=a(t_{\mathrm{obs}})/a(t_{\mathrm{em}})$.

For a perfect fluid of mass-equivalent energy density $\rho$ and pressure $p$, Einstein's equations giveThe last equation is local energy conservation for constant $\Lambda$, with vacuum energy kept separate from $\rho ,p$. A component with $p=w\rho c^2$ has $\rho \propto a^{-3(1+w)}$: pressureless matter dilutes as $a^{-3}$ and radiation as $a^{-4}$, the additional radiation factor being photon redshift. With $K=\Lambda =0$, matter domination gives $a\propto t^{2/3}$ and radiation domination gives $a\propto t^{1/2}$. Positive vacuum energy alone gives exponential expansion, $a\propto e^{Ht}$ with $H=c\sqrt{\Lambda /3}$.

Geometry, contents and initial conditions together determine the expansion history. A closed matter-only model recollapses; an open matter-only model expands indefinitely. With a cosmological constant, positive spatial curvature no longer by itself implies recollapse. Present critical density is ${\rho }_c=3H_0^2/(8\pi G)$ and the density parameters obey ${\Omega }_m+{\Omega }_r+{\Omega }_{\Lambda }+{\Omega }_K=1$, where ${\Omega }_K=-K{c}^2/(a_0^2{H}_0^2)$. These models describe the large-scale background, while local structure and inhomogeneities require perturbations or more general metrics.

With the Minkowski metric $(+---)$, the momentum conjugate to the real field vector is $\mathbf{\pi }=\dot{\mathbf{\varphi }}$. The Hamiltonian density isAssume the potential has a global minimum $V_{\min }$ and the boundary conditions permit a constant minimizing field. ThenThe bound is attained byThe homogeneous vacuum minimum criterion proves existence of a homogeneous lowest-energy configuration under those assumptions. On infinite space one subtracts the constant vacuum energy before comparing finite energy differences. This identifies the classical vacuum configuration; it does not assert that the quantum field has no fluctuations.

The claim does not follow from “no derivative dependence in $V$” alone. For example, the allowed functional form $V(\varphi )=-{\varphi }^4$ is unbounded below, so there is no state of lowest energy to identify. Boundary conditions forcing different vacua at opposite ends can instead require an inhomogeneous minimum, such as a domain wall. The positive quartic potential used in the following parts does have homogeneous minima, so these caveats do not obstruct its vacuum calculation.

Use one common ultraviolet cutoff for all physical degrees of freedom, with positive sign for each bosonic degree of freedom and negative sign for each fermionic degree of freedom. For the mass-moment cancellation of vacuum energy divergences, define the weighted supertrace $\mathrm{Str}f(m)={\sum }_{B}f(m_B)-{\sum }_{F}f(m_F)$. The large-momentum expansion isAfter multiplication by the radial measure $p^{2}dp$, these three terms produce quartic, quadratic and logarithmic ultraviolet divergences. Therefore the necessary and sufficient cancellations for the displayed unsubtracted finite-species vacuum energy areThey respectively mean equal numbers of bosonic and fermionic physical degrees of freedom, equal sums of squared masses, and equal sums of fourth powers of masses. Once they hold, the remaining radial integrand falls as $p^{-3}$ and is integrable at infinity. Nonnegative masses introduce no lower-end divergence.

Pairing every bosonic degree of freedom with a fermionic one of the same mass, as in an unbroken supersymmetric spectrum, is sufficient and cancels the entire expression. It is stronger than these three moment conditions. For a concrete non-paired example, take bosonic squared masses $\{0,3,3\}{m}_{\ast }^2$ and fermionic squared masses $\{1,1,4\}{m}_{\ast }^2$. Both have three degrees of freedom, squared-mass sum $6m_{\ast }^2$ and fourth-power-mass sum $18m_{\ast }^4$, but their spectra differ. If a vacuum energy counterterm is instead permitted, a renormalized finite answer need not satisfy them; that is a different prescription from finiteness of the source's bare sum.

A fermionic mode with canonical anticommutation relations $\{b,b^{†}\}=1$ has the symmetrically ordered Hamiltonian operator $H=\frac{E}{2}(b^{†}b-b{b}^{†})=E(b^{†}b-1/2)$. Its empty-state zero-point contribution is $-E/2$. A quantum harmonic oscillator with bosonic canonical commutation relations contributes $+E/2$ instead. For a Dirac field, sum over both particle and antiparticle modes and over spin: there are four independent oscillators per spatial momentum in four spacetime dimensions. Comparing bosonic and fermionic vacuum energies requires a common regularization in quantum field theory, matching degrees of freedom and a stated vacuum-energy subtraction convention.