# A small but nonzero cosmological constant This essay received an honorable mention in the Annual Essay Competition of the Gravity Research Foundation for the year 2000

## Abstract

Recent astrophysical observations seem to indicate that the cosmological constant is small but nonzero and positive. The old cosmological constant problem asks why it is so small; we must now ask, in addition, why it is nonzero (and is in the range found by recent observations), and why it is positive. In this essay, we try to kill these three metaphorical birds with one stone. That stone is the unimodular theory of gravity, which is the ordinary theory of gravity, except for the way the cosmological constant arises in the theory. We argue that the cosmological constant becomes dynamical, and eventually, in terms of the cosmic scale factor $`R(t)`$, it takes the form $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)(R(t_0)/R(t))^2`$, but not before the epoch corresponding to the redshift parameter $`z1`$.

Until recent years, there used to be only one well-known problem with the cosmological constant, viz., why it is so small — some 120 orders of magnitude smaller than what we naively think it should be. If it is that small, it must be zero, so some of us thought. Now we know better. The recent astrophysical observations indicate that, quite likely, the cosmological constant is not zero, though small, and positive, giving rise to cosmic repulsion. We must now ask these additional questions: Why is the cosmological constant not zero? Why does it have the observed magnitude, contributing to the energy density of the observable universe about twice as much as matter?

In this essay, we will attempt to present a qualitative solution to these three problems of the cosmological constant. We will do so in the framework of unimodular gravity which, as we will show, is nothing but the ordinary theory of gravity — except for one curious twist which has to do with the way the cosmological constant arises in the theory.

First let us reiterate the cosmological constant problems and put them in a form that will be useful later in the essay. From the Einstein-Hilbert action of gravity, we know that the cosmological constant $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ has units of the reciprocal of length squared. Until recent years, all galactic observations had failed to detect any spacetime distortions that one can attribute to a nonzero cosmological constant out to the farthest distance, about $`10^{28}`$ cm., in the observable universe. Denote the 4-volume of the observable universe by $`V`$, then the empirical observations give the bound $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}V^{1/2}`$. But theoretical expectations would predict a much larger value: $`\mathrm{\Lambda }l_P^2`$ with $`l_P10^{33}`$cm being the Planck length. This vast discrepancy by 122 orders of magnitude constitutes the old cosmological constant problem: why is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ so small? Recent observations (supernovae 1a, cosmic microwave background, cluster density and evolution etc) are consistent with a geometrically flat universe and they indicate that the cosmological constant contributes about 70% of the energy density; hence

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}},$$
(1)   
the cosmological constant is non-zero (and positive) after all.

Two observations are now in order. First, it is not surprising that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is non-zero since setting $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ does not enhance the existing symmetry of the gravitation theory. Second, the (old) cosmological constant problem is insensitive to the non-renormalizability of quantized general relativity as the problem occurs well below the Planck scale (even the relatively small vacuum energy density in QCD yields a discrepancy of about 42 orders of magnitude). Thus it seems reasonable that one can adequately address the cosmological constant problems in the framework of a gravity theory whose classical limit resembles general relativity. In the following, we consider the unimodular theory of gravity.

Unimodular gravity is actually very well motivated on physical grounds. Following Wigner for a proper quantum description of the massless spin-two graviton, the mediator in gravitational interactions, we naturally arrive at the concept of gauge transformations. Without loss of generality, we can choose the graviton’s two polarization tensors to be traceless (and symmetric). But since the trace of the polarization states is preserved by all the transformations, it is natural to demand that the graviton states be described by *traceless* symmetric tensor fields. The strong field generalization of the traceless tensor field is a metric tensor $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ that has unit determinant: $`detg_{\mu \nu }g=1`$, hence the name ”unimodular gravity.”

At first sight, the unimodular constraint has greatly changed the gravitational field equation, since now only the traceless combinations appear:

$$R^{\mu \nu }1/4g^{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G(T^{\mu \nu }1/4g^{\mu \nu }T_\lambda ^\lambda ),$$
(2)   
where $`T^{\mu \nu }`$ is the conserved matter stress tensor. But in conjunction with the Bianchi identity for the covariant derivative of the Einstein tensor, the field equation yields $`D^\mu (R8\pi GT_\lambda ^\lambda )=0`$. Thus $`(R8\pi GT_\lambda ^\lambda )`$ is a constant. Denoting that constant of integration by $`4\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, we find

$$R^{\mu \nu }1/2g^{\mu \nu }R=\mathrm{\Lambda }g^{\mu \nu }8\pi GT^{\mu \nu },$$
(3)   
the familiar Einstein’s equation. The only difference from the ordinary theory is in the way $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ arises in the theory — it is an (arbitrary) integration constant, unrelated to any parameter in the original action. There are two other differences that are worth mentioning. (1) Unlike the ordinary theory, the Lagrangian for unimodular gravity can be expressed as a polynomial of the metric field. (2) Conformal transformations $`g_{\mu \nu }=C^2g_{\mu \nu }^{}`$ in the unimodular theory of gravity are very simple, the unimodular constraint fixes the conformal factor $`C`$ to be 1.

Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ arises as an arbitrary constant of integration, it has *no* preferred value classically. In the corresponding quantum theory, we expect the state vector of the universe to be given by a superposition of states with different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the quantum vacuum functional to receive contributions from all different values of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. For the quantum theory, it is advantageous to start with a generalized version of the classical unimodular theory given above, that is generally covariant while preserving locality. We will use the version of unimodular gravity given by the Henneaux and Teitelboim action

$$S_{unimod}=\frac{1}{16\pi G}[\sqrt{g}(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda })2\mathrm{\Lambda }_\mu 𝒯^\mu ](d^3x)𝑑t.$$
(4)   
One of its equations of motion is $`\sqrt{g}=_\mu 𝒯^\mu `$, the generalized unimodular condition, with $`g`$ given in terms of the auxiliary field $`𝒯^\mu `$. Note that, in this theory, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ plays the role of ”momentum” conjugate to the ”coordinate” $`d^3x𝒯_0`$ which can be identified, with the aid of the generalized unimodular condition, as the spacetime volume $`V`$. Hence $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`V`$ are conjugate to each other.

We are ready to argue why the observed cosmological constant is so small. The argument makes crucial use of quantum mechanics. Consider the vacuum functional for unimodular gravity given by path integrations over $`𝒯^\mu `$, $`g_{\mu \nu }`$, the matter fields (represented by $`\varphi `$), and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$:

$$Z_{Minkowski}=𝑑\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda })d[\varphi ]d[g_{\mu \nu }]d[𝒯^\mu ]exp\left\{i[S_{unimod}+S_M(\varphi ,g_{\mu \nu })]\right\},$$
(5)   
where $`S_M`$ stands for the contribution from matter fields (and $`d\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ denotes the measure of the $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ integration). The integration over $`𝒯^\mu `$ yields $`\delta (_\mu \mathrm{\Lambda })`$, which implies that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is spacetime-independent (befiting its role as the cosmological constant). A Wick rotation now allows us to study the Euclidean vacuum functional $`Z`$. The integrations over $`g_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\varphi `$ give $`exp[S_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },\overline{\varphi })]`$ where $`\overline{g}_{\mu \nu }`$ and $`\overline{\varphi }`$ are the background fields which minimize the effective action $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. A curvature expansion for $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ yields a Lagrangian whose first two terms are the Einstein-Hilbert terms $`\sqrt{g}(R+2\mathrm{\Lambda })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ now denotes the *fully renormalized* cosmological constant. We can make a change of variable from the original (bare) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to the renormalized $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Let us assume that for the present cosmic era, $`\varphi `$ is essentially in the ground state, then it is reasonable to neglect the effects of $`\overline{\varphi }`$. To continue, we follow Baum and Hawking to evaluate $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },0)`$. For negative $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is positive; for positive $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, one finds $`S_\mathrm{\Lambda }(\overline{g}_{\mu \nu },0)=3\pi /G\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, so that

$$Z=𝑑\mu (\mathrm{\Lambda })exp(3\pi /G\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$
(6)   
The essential singularity of the integrand at $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0+`$ means that the overwhelmingly most probable configuration is the one with $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, and this in turn implies that the observed cosmological constant in the present era is essentially zero.

There is one serious shortcoming in the above argument involving the Wick rotation to Euclidean space. It is well-known that the Euclidean formulation of quantum gravity is plagued by the conformal factor problem, due to divergent path-integrals. In our defense, we want to point out that we have used the effective action in the Euclidean formulation at its stationary point only. We should also recall that the conformal factor problem is arguably rather benign in the original version of unimodular gravity (as pointed out above), so perhaps it is not that serious even in the generalized version that we have just employed. There is another cause for concern. Since part of the above argument bears some resemblance to Coleman’s wormhole approach, one may worry that some of the objections to Coleman’s argument (on top of the conformal factor problem) may also apply here. Fortunately, it appears that they do not. In any case, to the extent that our argument is valid, we have understood why the observed cosmological constant is so small and why, if the cosmological constant is not exactly zero, it is positive.

In the above argument, we have assumed that for the present cosmic era, the matter fields are in their ground states so that their effects on the effective action can be neglected; and the end result is that the observed $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is zero. Plausible as this assumption is, it is not entirely correct. So, we do expect a non-vanishing (but small) cosmological constant for the present era, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ goes to zero only asymptotically as the universe expands. Regrettably, we have not been able to calculate the small but not-entirely-negligible effects of the matter fields on the effective action. We will adopt the attitude that the above result is valid to the lowest order of approximation for which $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is zero. We will now borrow an argument due to Sorkin to make an order of magnitude estimate of the cosmological constant (to the next leading order).

There are two ingredients to Sorkin’s argument. First, from unimodular gravity he takes the idea that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is in some sense conjugate to the spacetime volume $`V`$. Hence their fluctuations obey a Heisenberg-type quantum uncertainty principle,

$$\delta V\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }1,$$
(7)   
where we have used the natural units ($`\mathrm{}=1`$, $`G=1`$). The second ingredient to Sorkin’s argument does not seem to be directly related to the unimodular theory of gravity. It is drawn from the causal-set theory, which stipulates that continous geometries in classical gravity should be replaced by ”causal-sets”, the discrete substratum of spacetime. The fluctuation in the number of elements $`N`$ making up the set is of the Poisson type, i.e., $`\delta N\sqrt{N}`$. For a causal set, the spacetime volume $`V`$ becomes $`N`$. It follows that

$$\delta V\delta N\sqrt{N}\sqrt{V}.$$
(8)   
Putting Eqs. (7) and (8) together yields a minimum uncertainty in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\delta \mathrm{\Lambda }V^{1/2}`$. But we have already argued that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ vanishes to the lowest order of approximation and that it is positive if it is not zero. So we conclude that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ fluctuates about zero with a magnitude of $`V^{1/2}`$ and it is positive:

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }+\frac{1}{\sqrt{V}},$$
(9)   
which, lo and behold, is Eq. (1)! The cosmological constant is small, but non-zero and positive, and has the correct order of magnitude as observed. In other words, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ contributes to the energy of the universe an amount on the order of the critical density. As a side remark, we note that if we now appeal to the inflationary universe scenario, we may also understand why matter contributes a comparable amount.

We emphasize that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is of the form given by Eq. (9) only after the matter fields have, more or less, settled down to the ground state. To be more precise about the epoch when $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ starts taking on that form, we consider the Friedmann-Robertson-Walker cosmologies. In that case, Eq. (9) becomes

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }(t)=\mathrm{\Lambda }(t_0)\left(\frac{R(t_0)}{R(t)}\right)^2.$$
(10)   
For the flat case which our universe appears to approximate, the expansion rate in the post-radiation-dominated era is given by 

$$\frac{1}{H_0^2}\left(\frac{\dot{R}}{R}\right)^2=(13\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })w^3+3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }w^2,$$
(11)   
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the fractional energy density in the present era due to the cosmological constant (Eq. (10)), $`0<wR_0/R=1+z<\mathrm{}`$, and $`H_0`$ is the current Hubble parameter. A cosmic bounce occurs whenever the right-hand side has a zero for a real positive $`w`$. The root is given by $`w=3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }/(3\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }1)`$, which, for the observed value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=7/10`$, equals 21/11. It follows that the absence of a bounce in the past restricts the allowed redshift parameter to $`z10/11`$. We conclude that the cosmological constant is of the form given by Eq. (10) only after the cosmic epoch corresponding to $`z\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}1`$ (the formation of clusters of galaxies). Eventually $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ dominates the cosmic evolution, driving the universe to expand at the rate given by $`Rt`$.

In summary, we have proposed that one can understand, in the framework of the unimodular theory of gravity, why the cosmological constant is so small but non-zero and positive, and is in the range found by recent astrophysical observations. This theory is well motivated, its original form being based on the quantum description of helicity-two particles. It leads to a theory of gravity in which the cosmological constant is freed to become dynamical at the quantum level, and its form is given by Eq. (10) for $`z\begin{array}{c}<\\ \end{array}1`$. To work out the form of the dynamical cosmological constant for the earler epochs will be the next challenge.

This essay is based mainly on the talk given by one of us (YJN) in the 1999 DESY Theory Workshop on “$`\nu `$s from the Universe.” We thank H. Nielsen for encouraging us to write it up. YJN thanks W. Buchmuller for the hospitality extended to him at DESY. He also thanks W. Buchmuller, N. Dragon, H. Nielsen, and especially R. D. Sorkin and P. H. Frampton for useful discussions. The work was supported in part by the U.S. Department of Energy under #DF-FC02-94ER40818 and #DE-FG05-85ER-40219, and by the Bahnson Fund of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. YJN was on leave at MIT where this essay was written. He thanks the faculty at the Center for Theoretical Physics for their hospitality.