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

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

It leads to a bounce. Good question. That is part of the implied conclusion

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.

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

oops I made an error.

Non singular start points to a universe as far as expansion would imply non zero initial entropy.

Singularity, at the start of a universe (Penrose theorem) would IMPLY NO entropy at the start of expansion.

I have some real problems with the Penrose theorem as well as what Hawkings and Ellis said in 1973, in their cambridge university monograph, and will address them in part in Marcel Grossman 15.

Needless to say, if one has a NON singular start to expansion, one has initial non zero entropy, and the Tolman problem of initial increasing entropy levels, is de facto and one has to solve it.

All I am doing, in research is to try to give A SOLUTION to the very real Tolman problem of initial entropy build up, per cosmological cycle.

I salute Steinhardt of Princeton University for his very well thought out attempt to do the same, Stefan.

Any model which solves the initial build up of entropy per cycle, Stefan, is worthy of serious analysis.

I did not say it in my 6 page paper, but I chose the Klauder ENHANCED QUANTIZATION procedure for a cosmological constant, in part, as to how to address the build up of entropy inherent in cyclical universe models