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.
I agree with all you said about dark energy and its relationship with the cosmological constant.
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
Hi Andy - I just want to state for the record that what we "observe" will not unlock the actual true physical model (our eyes and instruments deceive us!). My theory shows that the speed of light is the first and most fundamental constant and even the speed of light is not an "absolute" constant - It is a "relative constant" (a term I coined from my theory) and it is the reason why all physical constants are the same in all inertial reference frames.
One more thing - The cosmological constant is a misnomer... it was never a constant in time or place in the universe.
I know you will not believe me now but time will tell... I like your original thinking on the topic and wish you the best of luck.
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
No Problem Andy - Like I said - I stated it for the record!
Dr. Beckwith,
any thoughts on why the Gravitational Constant is what it is, and why it apparently exists as a fundamental property of action? jrc
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
Dr. Beckwith,
To say, "The only thing that could be accelerating the expansion... is space itself," suggests that space (along with time) is continuously coming into being. That in turn could be the origin of energy. This would be a violation of conservation laws in a naïve sense, but would be an argument for the Cosmological Constant expressing a fundamental property of creational equilibrium. I'd buy that. GR isn't a complete theory, and while being causal and realistic, it is dependent on the Gravitational Constant which has yet to be rationalized, and cannot unify with the quantum realm because it treats ponderable bodies by *mass average* in an observable horizon without an empirical density bound established by theoretical premise. jrc
Andrew, It is good to see someone tackling inflation and the cosmological constant together. I agree that these things are of fundamental importance and considerations such as this could lead to a real breakthrough in understanding.
Does the analysis lead to the conclusion that there should be a bounce or is that an assumption of the theory?
It leads to a bounce. Good question. That is part of the implied conclusion
Hi Andrew, thank goodness for section 6 : ) Fascinating to me that you have chosen this subject as fundamental. Wouldn't be my pick but it is the variety of opinions that makes the contest all the more interesting. I do hope you get lots of readers who can comprehend and appreciate what you have presented. Kind regards Georgina
Hi Andrew, i read your essay and it seems you have found a way to mathematically further underpin an oscillating universe (as I infer from your answers to John Cox and Philip Gibbs above), bouncing off from a collapsing one. Don't misunderstand me, I fully appreachiate such further underpinnings as important and well done.
Correct me where I am wrong, I conclude that bounce and collapse refer to the same 'universe', hence a universe transforms itself into another structure (into a big bang).
My question is whether or not this transformative dynamics is eternal or can come to an end.
Another question to you is whether or not you consider your approach (which I label for the sake of my question as fully consistent and complete in reference to what we know today about physics) as being necessarily the only one that is able to capture the correct ontology of the universe?
The process of transformative dynamics as modeled is eternal if the initial entropy problem can be fixed
Richard Tolman in " Relativity, Thermodynamics and Cosmology" which is now available in dover book press is a 1934 dated Clareon press release which stated that entropy from cycle to cycle would increase.
If a bouncing universe exists , then some means of avoiding incremental increases (or more than incremental) has to be found.
I proposed in November 2017 in Frontiers in Fundamental physics 15, in discussions with several astrophysics people that there could be a procedure in which a multi verse version of cyclic conformal cosmology ( a variation I have discussed with people ever since my article proposing such, in Hindawi press
http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ahep/2014/230713
could be used to introduce multiple universes feeding back into an initial universe partition function, i.e. see formulas 34 and 35. A bit more work along this line would establish that there would be a range of initial entropies fed back into the starting new universe, and if the range of entropies was , say averaged out, in the restart of the universe conditions as given in Eq. 36 that this with some additional analysis would lead to a stable initial entropy, for re creation of a new universe, and there by avoid the Tolman build up of entropy crisis from cycle to cycle.
If one does not have this sort of averaging, as I am proposing, then there would be by necessity, some other form of procedure.
I will address this issue fully in a future publication which I will introduce in both Dice 2018 and also in the 15 Marcel Grossman meeting, in Rome Italy in 2018
Thanks for raising this issue.
If this Tolman entropy crisis can be nipped in the bud, then one can have an infinite number of restarts of the universe.
I am in the process of setting up an analysis of just this issue for Dice 2018 and also Marcel Grossman 15
Stefan, your question is excellent and I hope I have answered it.
Thanks also to you for the elaborate answer.
quote
Another question to you is whether or not you consider your approach (which I label for the sake of my question as fully consistent and complete in reference to what we know today about physics) as being necessarily the only one that is able to capture the correct ontology of the universe?
end of quote
An answer which solves the build up of entropy problem identified by Tolman will suffice.
The answer I gave is a means to average out different contributions to entropy levels in the start of a non singular universe. I.e. the average level of entropy per cycle at the start of expansion would be zero.
If one believes the Penrose singularity theorem ( I don't) then (entropy) is set to zero at the start by certain conventions.
Needless to say, the problem Tolman identified with cyclical models is very serious.
Steinhart has his own repeating universe model, which has been partly falsified on the basis of recent observations. But it also tried to solve the build up of entropy problem identified by Tolman in 1934
IMO an answer which fixes the build up of entropy per cosmological cycle will suffice.
As it is, I am going to try to present my own findings in Marcel Grossman 15, and also in Dice, in 2018 in Pisa, Italy.
Any MODEL which solves that problem is worthy of analysis, Stefan
