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

Dear Andrew Walcott Beckwith,

I believe you often attempt to bound phenomena, and to herein derive an explicit bound on the cosmological constant, based on Klauder's enhanced quantization.

Your equations are impossible to critique (I pity your reviewers!) but your basic concept seems to be that of a space-time "wall" separating pre-Planckian from Planckian regimes. I have difficulty conceiving of such a wall, but then I have difficulty conceiving of lots of things.

You might wish to read my comment on Klauder's essay page, where I key off of his basis in Dirac to note our friend Steven Kauffmann's paper pointing out nonsense results from the Dirac equation and attributing these to Dirac's consideration of space-time symmetry issues that he used instead of deriving his equation from a corresponding classical Hamiltonian. It is difficult to know just how far this nonsense can or has ricocheted in relativistic quantum field theory.

Which brings me to my essay that treats the historical development of 'space-time symmetry' and raises questions about it. I hope you will read my essay and comment.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

Hi Andrew Beckwith

Hope you did well in the "Frontiers in Fundamental physics 15 in Spain this last November, 2017" dear Andrew Beckwith, what was the paper....?

I highly appreciate your essay and hope for reciprocity.

I request you please spend some of the valuable time on Dynamic Universe Model also and give your some of the valuable & esteemed guidance

Some of the Main foundational points of Dynamic Universe Model :

-No Isotropy

-No Homogeneity

-No Space-time continuum

-Non-uniform density of matter, universe is lumpy

-No singularities

-No collisions between bodies

-No blackholes

-No warm holes

-No Bigbang

-No repulsion between distant Galaxies

-Non-empty Universe

-No imaginary or negative time axis

-No imaginary X, Y, Z axes

-No differential and Integral Equations mathematically

-No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to GR on any condition

-No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models

-No many mini Bigbangs

-No Missing Mass / Dark matter

-No Dark energy

-No Bigbang generated CMB detected

-No Multi-verses

Here:

-Accelerating Expanding universe with 33% Blue shifted Galaxies

-Newton's Gravitation law works everywhere in the same way

-All bodies dynamically moving

-All bodies move in dynamic Equilibrium

-Closed universe model no light or bodies will go away from universe

-Single Universe no baby universes

-Time is linear as observed on earth, moving forward only

-Independent x,y,z coordinate axes and Time axis no interdependencies between axes..

-UGF (Universal Gravitational Force) calculated on every point-mass

-Tensors (Linear) used for giving UNIQUE solutions for each time step

-Uses everyday physics as achievable by engineering

-21000 linear equations are used in an Excel sheet

-Computerized calculations uses 16 decimal digit accuracy

-Data mining and data warehousing techniques are used for data extraction from large amounts of data.

- Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true....Have a look at

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/p/blog-page_15.html

I request you to please have a look at my essay also, and give some of your esteemed criticism for your information........

Dynamic Universe Model says that the energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation passing grazingly near any gravitating mass changes its in frequency and finally will convert into neutrinos (mass). We all know that there is no experiment or quest in this direction. Energy conversion happens from mass to energy with the famous E=mC2, the other side of this conversion was not thought off. This is a new fundamental prediction by Dynamic Universe Model, a foundational quest in the area of Astrophysics and Cosmology.

In accordance with Dynamic Universe Model frequency shift happens on both the sides of spectrum when any electromagnetic radiation passes grazingly near gravitating mass. With this new verification, we will open a new frontier that will unlock a way for formation of the basis for continual Nucleosynthesis (continuous formation of elements) in our Universe. Amount of frequency shift will depend on relative velocity difference. All the papers of author can be downloaded from "http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/ "

I request you to please post your reply in my essay also, so that I can get an intimation that you replied

Best

=snp

Dear Andrew Walcott Beckwith,

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I'm very impressed with the work you do and generally attempt to read your papers. [I still pity your reviewers.]

The topic of cyclic cosmology is beyond a comment, so I will attempt to respond to your questions about Barbour's nature of time (an earlier FQXi essay).

He begins by noting that his mechanics books define neither time nor clocks. He further complains that the fundamental notions of duration and simultaneity are almost universally ignored, the latter due to Einstein's 'relativity of simultaneity'. In fact, Barbour states that only Newton discussed duration. Barbour hopes to persuade one that time as an independent concept has no place in physics.

In agreement with Einstein, ("There exists no space absent of field.") I view 'space' as contingent on 'field', where field is substantial in the sense it has energy, hence matter. Similarly, I view time as contingent on energy, essentially energy in the field (see Hertz's 'energy' quote, on my page 5). Barbour quotes Mach to the effect that 'time is an abstraction'. I would not go that far. I would agree with Newton that:

"Absolute, true, and mathematical time, of itself, and from its own nature, flows equably without relation to anything external, and by another name is called duration."

The nature of time, in my opinion, is universal simultaneity, and its property of 'duration' is almost certainly tied to local energy, and very likely to the constant of action.

In this sense I somewhat agree with Barbour that

"...intervals of time do not pre-exist, but are created by what the universe does."

The "intervals of time" are supposedly what clocks measure, as described in my essay as "counting frequency" or "measuring energy".

Ignoring his 'rotation of the earth', etc., I disagree with Barbour that "Newton was wrong... Mach was right, we do abstract time from motion." This is, if not duplicitous, at least confused; motion is no more fundamental than time, in my mind not as fundamental. Motion is essentially local, while time is universal simultaneity. Universal outranks local every time. Perhaps Barbour believes that Einstein's attachment of time dimensions to local moving objects make time also 'local' in nature. I do not.

The key to Barbour, as I see it, is his statement on page 4:

"Modern textbooks, leave us to fathom the meaning of t, say that all these quantities are functions of the time: phi(t), a(t), r(t)."

If this is true, one would expect that a clever approach could factor out t and this is what he does, ending on page 9 with an expression for delta-t in terms of energy.

I'm not impressed that Barbour has accomplished anything other than to support my arguments in my essay. I do not support all of his arguments.

My very best regards,

Edwin Eugene Klingman

I have elected to rate your essay now...

It is written more in the style of a scientific paper than an essay about topics in Science, but I gave you high marks in several areas. I am using a grid system to grade papers this time, assessing both cogency of message and comprehensibility. Overall, you did well this time out.

I have to give you partial credit, because you jump right in to using Math to illustrate your point, but I know that is easier for you than explaining what you are presenting first. Kudos for keeping on topic, or at least showing how your subject matter answers the essay question. Demerits for unclear explanations of how the Cosmology piece ties in with Klauder's work.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Hi Andy,

You really wrote a very nice Essay, also connected with the papers that you recently published in JHEPGC. Congrats!

That the most fundamental constituent to physics is the cosmological constant is an intriguing statement. Did you read the book "God's Equation: Einstein, Relativity, and the Expanding Universe" by Amir D. Aczel? If you did not, I suggest you to read it. "God's Equation" is exactly the Einstein Field equation with the additional cosmological constant how it was written by Einstein in 1917. In any case, your Essay is very fine. You deserves the highest score that I am going to give you.

Good luck in the Contest!

Cheers, Ch.

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe consists only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Dear Fellow Essayists

This will be my final plea for fair treatment.,

Reliable evidence exists that proves that the surface of the earth was formed millions of years before man and his utterly complex finite informational systems ever appeared on that surface. It logically follows that Nature must have permanently devised the only single physical construct of earth allowable.

All objects, be they solid, liquid, or vaporous have always had a visible surface. This is because the real Universe must consist only of one single unified VISIBLE infinite surface occurring eternally in one single infinite dimension that am always illuminated mostly by finite non-surface light.

Only the truth can set you free.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Andrew,

OK, it's not the type of essay a 'speed read' can penetrate from any distance away.(I do that for 3x the essay number first order evaluation). But on second reading, after Kaluder's I got in, and I found it a world full of wonders, nicely put together, though I'd have liked a little more English and less symbolism!

Novel, original, interesting and informative and fundamental it was, so that's a good score sorted.

As far as the derivation. As you may have seen I've mainly followed the older traditions after Zwicky, Rees, Smoot and Lahav of 'observational' rather than theoretical cosmology so I can't much comment. I'm familiar with the singularity and cosmological constant matters (see my recent linked in post re Sandage 2006 etc) but as you may have seen have derived a real physical cyclic ontology overcoming both. There may be some link but it wasn't clear to me. If you can see one do advise! or if you see flaws in mine do point them out.

I also have no issue with the 'space/time bubble concept, indeed I invoke it at all scales from sub Plankian up! so was interested in another view. I think all approaches are valid and none of my unfamiliarity with yours of course affects scoring so I'm pleased to give it due reward, hold on tight..

Very Best

Peter

dammit, logged me out! At least it's not punctiuated with 'n's and no gaps as mine are at present!

P

... there is no need for a bounce (cyclic in radius and time) when you have ralpha'/R. The universe is cyclic in mass and time.

Andrew wanted me to post something I wrote on my essay blog area. This concerns a difficulty I see with Klauder's quantization. I do this with some trepidation I must confess, for I have noticed that when I point to a problem with some claimed physics this results in down votes.

Here is the problem with Klauder's idea. I have to use parentheses for langle and rangle or bra-ket stuff because this system snags up on those. If we have quantum states П€(p,r,t) = (П€(t)|p,r) then the operators bf p and bf r (bf before letter stands for operators) act on the wave function

bf pbf rП€(p,r,t) = (П€(t) bf |pbf r|p,r) = (П€(t)| bf pr|p,r) = pr(П€(t)|p,r)

and similarly I can write

bf rbf pП€(p,r,t) = (П€(t)| bf rbf p|p,r) = (П€(t)| bf rp|p,r) =rp(П€(t)|p,r)

where r and p are just eigenvalues or numbers and so rp = pr. We can then conclude [bf p, bf r] = 0, which is a big oopsie. I hinted at this problem and he responded in a way that was a bit testy. There is a problem with pointing out a possible error in somebody's paper in that they can one-bomb you.

Klauder maintains we can have a position and momentum representation of QM simultaneously. This is generally not admitted. In your paper you use the Schrödinger equation i∂ψ/∂t =Hψ to get under "langle rangle" pdq - Hdt in the classical setting. This turns out to be alright in general.

Quantum mechanics has only one representation at once. Either one has the position or momentum configurations. This hearkens back to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The operators used in a representation act on the variables of that representation. Unfortunately Klauder is trying to do QM in incommensurate variables or operators.

Cheers LC

Andrew,

I agree that certainly the cosmological constant is a fundamental metric... and very constant.

I have read somewhat about the severe difficulties in computing it from theory, so I appreciate that you are searching out and testing new methods.

To be sure, I am not expert in this aspect. But to my thinking it would help a lot if GR theorists treated the temporal curvature as an imaginary quantity. That certainly eliminates the cosmological coincidence problem... so perhaps both problems resolve together?

Anyway, I am sure that there is more "what" to that which is "fundamental". For certain one must account for quantum algebra.

More to the point, our universe is merely the sum of its particles. So for the respective formulae to be consistent, both must have the SAME form!

Given that, and my assertion of a foundational formula, I'd suggest that you also read Sabine Hossenfelder's paper. It discusses some of the issues you responded to in Sec 6 at length.

Wayne