Using Klauder’s Enhanced Quantization to set a bound to the Cosmological constant, in Pre Planckian space- as a way to ascertain the most important fundamental physics question. by Andrew Beckwith

I wish to add a note to this essay

1st. there is an error which I already pointed out to FQXI admins which was not corrected

It is, to read section 7 as follows

quote

7 . Acknowledgements

This work is supported in part by National Nature Science Foundation of China grant No. 11375279. We also thank Dr. Christian Corda for recommending that this author be allowed to participate in Frontiers of Fundamental physics, as also did Johnathan Dickau in communications with the organizers of FFP 15. Finally, and not least is profound thanks to Dr. John Klauder who was a gracious explainer of the physics of his insightful reference [3] which the author bought upon return from Frontiers of Fundamental physics 15. The recommendations of both Corda and Dickau lead to the author's fortuitous introduction to the marvellous physics of Dr. John Klauder which the author thinks are of fundamental import.

Review this document with the [4] changed to [3]

Secondly, here are some arXIV references as to John Klauder's ideas

https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.04713

quote

Enhanced Quantization: The Right way to Quantize Everything

John R. Klauder

(Submitted on 15 Feb 2017 (v1), last revised 24 May 2017 (this version, v2))

Canonical quantization relies on Cartesian, canonical, phase-space coordinates to promote to Hermitian operators, which also become the principal ingredients in the quantum Hamiltonian. While generally appropriate, this procedure can also fail, e.g., for covariant, quartic, scalar fields in five-and-more spacetime dimensions (and possibly four spacetime dimensions as well), which become trivial; such failures are normally blamed on the `problem' rather than on the 'quantization procedure'. In Enhanced Quantization the association of c-numbers to q-numbers is chosen very differently such that: (i) there is no need to seek classical, Cartesian, phase-space coordinates; (ii) every classical, contact transformation is applicable and no change of the quantum operators arises; (iii) a new understanding of the importance of 'Cartesian coordinates' is established; and (iv) although discussed elsewhere in detail, the procedures of enhanced quantization offer fully acceptable solutions yielding non-trivial results for quartic scalar fields in four-and-more spacetime dimensions. In early sections, this paper offers a wide-audience approach to the basic principles of Enhanced Quantization using simple examples; later, several significant examples are cited for a deeper understanding. An historical note concludes the paper.

Comments: 18 pages, contribution to conference proceedings, version approved by referee

Subjects: Quantum Physics (quant-ph); High Energy Physics - Theory (hep-th); Mathematical Physics (math-ph); History and Philosophy of Physics (physics.hist-ph)

Cite as: arXiv:1702.04713 [quant-ph]

(or arXiv:1702.04713v2 [quant-ph] for this version)

Submission history

From: John Klauder [view email]

[v1] Wed, 15 Feb 2017 18:55:00 GMT (16kb)

[v2] Wed, 24 May 2017 19:50:09 GMT (16kb)

individuals reading my essay should be aware that the prior version of section 7 had an INCORRECT [4] instead of [3] put in. What I have done is to append and correct this error

I asked for a substitution of a corrected document for the FQXI contest, but this evidently was denied

I hope that these two posts, as made will re focus the evaluators upon the intended flow of ideas.

The reason why I picked the cosmological constant is because the speed of light can vary in materials. I.e.the speed of light is not quite what people think it is

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all?lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ad_f

Next, see

The learned paper referenced from the article is here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1411/1411.3987.pdf

But be sure also to see a follow-up paper here:

https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1504/1504.06059.pdf »

The single sentence summary of the follow-up paper "says it all":

"We show that even spatially structured photons travel at the speed of light and the measurement of D. Giovannini et al. only provided the projection of this velocity onto the axis of beam propagation."

In fact, the original paper even acknowledges this, in at least a few places.

It's as simple as comparing a beam traveling straight with one reflecting back and forth along some beam path: simply add up the extra path-length travelled.

IMO if we go by what is MEASURED, we have to use data collection and the speed of light has some measurement issues

Whereas the Cosmological constant is tied into the question of Dark Energy

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

i.e. setting the cosmological constant gets into the fate of tthe universe which is why I picked it

setting the cosmological constant leads to some very huge components as to the fate of the universe as related here:

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_accel.html

To paraphrase my point. the speed of light, as Measured , has some obvious and subtle issues, as brought up above.

If the Cosmological constant is in a 1 relationship with respect to dark energy, this may be a way to explain the speed up of acceleration of the universe, and also of other things, in a macro scale

I.e. see the following

http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_accelerating.html

quote

The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion (i.e. more than countering the braking force of the mutual gravitational pull of the galaxies) is space itself, suggesting that perhaps it is not empty after all but contains some strange "dark energy" or "antigravity" currently unknown to science. Thus, even what appears to be a complete vacuum actually contains energy in some currently unknown way. In fact, initial calculations (backed up by more recent research such as that on the growth of galaxy clusters by NASA's Chandra x-ray space telescope and that on binary galaxies by Christian Marinoni and Adeline Buzzi of the University of Provence) suggest that fully 73 - 74% of the universe consists of this dark energy.

Here is a popular science exposition as to how Dark energy and the cosmological constant may have a 1-1 relationship

https://www.wired.com/2008/12/dark-energy-ein/

If this identification is correct, and I am suggesting it is, then that is why I have made the identification I have made, about the cosmological constant being so fundamental.

I hope this answers your question, from an OBSERVATIONAL stand point.

And that, from an observational stand point is the reason for the huge importance of the cosmological constant, Scott, from an OBSERVATIONAL stand point

See page 59 of "Faster than light" by Nick Herbert for fourteen things moving faster than the speed of light

Issue is of information transfer, and communication

Why I do not believe you, and this is not personal

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/supernova/home.html

Now for falsification of quinessence

http://supernova.lbl.gov/

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C990809/docs/perlmutter.pdf

review the last link, i.e. it kills a time varying cosmological constant

quote

I was asked to present the status of the cosmological parameters, and in particular

the status of the recent results concerning the accelerating universe--and

the possible cosmological constant or dark energy that is responsible for the

universe's acceleration. This result comes most directly from the recent type Ia

supernova work, so although I will mention a few of the approaches to the cosmological

parameters, I will emphasize the work with the type Ia supernovae. I

will try to give you a sense of exactly how we reached the current conclusions

and what the current level of confidence is in that conclusion.

end of quote

then see

To summarize, the current type Ia supernova data suggests that we live in an

accelerating universe, a universe with either a positive cosmological constant or

some other dark energy with strongly negative pressure. This statement can

be made with great confidence if you have reason to believe that we live in a

flat universe, either based on the cosmological microwave background data or

based on the predictions of the inflationary universe theory. The best fit in a

flat universe is approximately ΩM = 0.7 and ΩΛ = 0.3. Even if you are not

yet convinced by the current data (or inflationary theory) that we live in a flat

universe, and consider the possibility that the universe is open and low-mass, the

positive-Λ supernova results are still statistically quite strong and we have not

yet been able to identify any systematic uncertainty that could reconcile our data

with zero Λ. The loopholes that remain in this last statement will be addressed

with upcoming data from the new low-redshift supernova campaign and the new

very-high-redshift supernova work.

in short, no need for quinessence

thanks again for your reply. There may be quinessence in the initial formation of the cosmological constant, and my work indicates how that could happen, but for a long term solution, Scott, there is no need for quinessence.

Use Oscam's razor.

Thanks for your reply to me Scott

Andy

preserving the consistency of physical law from cycle to cycle

avoiding having a collapsing universe

otherwise one would have the cascade of baby universes with most of them non viable