No Problem Andy - Like I said - I stated it for the record!
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
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
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
Hello Mr Beckwith,
I loved yur barrier between the pre planckian and planckian bubble.It is relevant when we consider that gravitation is the main chief orchetra.
I don't consider a Big Bang in my model of spherisation with quant and cosm sphères Inside the universal sphere.I consider even a gravitational aether.The dark energy I see it like a simple anti gravitational spherical push. This gravitational aether is probably the answer to tnhis quantum gravitation, and there is a link with your preplanckian era when we consider this gravitation.I ask if the cold is the answer ? have you an idea about this zero absolute and this gravitation ?
congratulations for your essay, best regards
I am thinking of gravitation in terms of an emergent field analogy. It is not the same as your suggestion, but you are motivationally not too far off from what started my inquiry
Also look at this business of NLED (non linear electrodyamics) and GR
https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.07579
also see work done by Camara
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402311
they consider if the cosmological constant is time independent or time dependent, and go to the regime of a quantum bounce at the start of nucleation of a new universe
The aether in terms of gravitation may be, as you described it, partly described by
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402311
My work is roughly congruent to when one has a time independent cosmological constant, as they describe it
You may wish to consider if your gravitational aether model is congruent with their work.
Thanks for your view point and outlook.
As to the matter of "cold" and an anti gravitational push, all I can say is that various models of the cosmological constant. Dependent upon the initial sign of the cosmological constant, it conceivably could be connected initially as an "anti gravitational" push as you referred to it. That if the sign of the cosmological constant were negative.
As I diagrammed it out, using enhanced quantization, the cosmological constant initially has a positive sign.
If the sign were, instead negative, then the idea you have of an anti gravitational push could be entertained.
That is a matter of further research and speculation though.
Thanks for your contribution to this discussion
"Any model which solves the initial build up of entropy per cycle, Stefan, is worthy of serious analysis."
That's my point of view too, since we all are working on some solutions that could bring us all together closer to truth.
Good look for your attempt!
ups, should be read as - good luck!!!
the statement that there is a requirement for a cessation of monotonic increases in the state, initially, of entropy, at the start of repeated cosmological cycles, is a necessary condition as to avoiding the catastrophe as given by Tolman's 1930s cosmology tome which specified that repeating cycles of cosmological rebirth would by necessity create an ever increasing entropy load for successive universes to co exit with, as far as evolution dynamics. The end result is that if there was a perpetual increase in entropy, per cosmological cycle, that , God forbid, the Friedman evolution equations would no longer work.
I.e. there would be no sense in talking of eternal time.; I.e. cosmological existence would, if there was a cyclical universe, be not a dynamic process.
The alternative to big crunch, and then steadily increasing levels of entropy, at the start of a new universe cycle, is that there would be an averaging out of entropy, at the start of a new cosmological expansion, as I specified in the multi verse generalization of the cyclic cosmology picture.
Not specified, though, but one huge issue, to parse would be if the multi verse existed, with different universes contributing to an initial partition function of a newly expanding universe, is do we have constancy in physical law per cycle, and what does that say about the speculation as to if there is a Darwinian process as to creation of new universes?
See
https://arxiv.org/ftp/gr-qc/papers/0205/0205119.pdf
as given by Vaas
I will spend a lot of time trying to fine tune an answer to this speculation and to come up with a procedure which coheres and admits the possibility of an eternal multiverse, where as considering that individual universes may have a different fate
I.e. invariance of a Multiverse of perhaps up to an infinite number of different constituent evolving universes.
An interesting paper, but your formulae are beyond me (as I have only met the standard FRW formulae) so I cannot comment on them. However, you have also made useful explanatory points in your posts which interest me in relation to Penrose's CCC model. May I ask if there is a simple reason why you do not agree with the Penrose resetting of entropy to zero? I ask because I accept it as reasonable, but of course I could very easily be wrong.
I imply my acceptance of Penrose's CCC in my contest paper and although CCC is important to me it is only a side issue in my paper. It seems to me that there are two ideas at the CCC node of 1) losing the metric and 2) losing the entropy.
I came late to physics after retirement and my background is in psychometrics. What I knew about making metrics in psychometrics readily led me to accept Penrose's method for losing the metric. I will gladly write more about that if you are interested and not familiar with the Rasch Method of making metrics and also the havoc played by a Guttmann structure of data when trying to make metrics. I am not 100% accepting of when the metric is lost. I think that it could degrade in stages before reaching the node. The issue of the metric in my opinion also affects the entropy issue.
Best wishes
Austin
Austin, please doth e bring up the Rasch method
thanks
Andrew