Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Contests Home


Previous Contests

What Is “Fundamental”
October 28, 2017 to January 22, 2018
Sponsored by the Fetzer Franklin Fund and The Peter & Patricia Gruber Foundation
read/discusswinners

Wandering Towards a Goal
How can mindless mathematical laws give rise to aims and intention?
December 2, 2016 to March 3, 2017
Contest Partner: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Fund.
read/discusswinners

Trick or Truth: The Mysterious Connection Between Physics and Mathematics
Contest Partners: Nanotronics Imaging, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, and The John Templeton Foundation
Media Partner: Scientific American

read/discusswinners

How Should Humanity Steer the Future?
January 9, 2014 - August 31, 2014
Contest Partners: Jaan Tallinn, The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, The John Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

It From Bit or Bit From It
March 25 - June 28, 2013
Contest Partners: The Gruber Foundation, J. Templeton Foundation, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Questioning the Foundations
Which of Our Basic Physical Assumptions Are Wrong?
May 24 - August 31, 2012
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation, SubMeta, and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

Is Reality Digital or Analog?
November 2010 - February 2011
Contest Partners: The Peter and Patricia Gruber Foundation and Scientific American
read/discusswinners

What's Ultimately Possible in Physics?
May - October 2009
Contest Partners: Astrid and Bruce McWilliams
read/discusswinners

The Nature of Time
August - December 2008
read/discusswinners

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Lawrence Crowell: on 3/1/18 at 0:32am UTC, wrote Really the problem is the whole idea of giving numerical scores or votes....

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 21:05pm UTC, wrote specifically, the last 1 point bomb was made on my essay on February 27,...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 20:40pm UTC, wrote specifically, the last 1 point bombing occurred on February 27 the day...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 19:32pm UTC, wrote Yes,please send me your paper at rwill9955b@gmail.com

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 19:31pm UTC, wrote I am going to make the bastards 1 bombing people look very bad, by...

Peter Jackson: on 2/27/18 at 19:15pm UTC, wrote Andrew, Shame yours didn't make it in. I did roust up some support. I...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 14:20pm UTC, wrote Each time you hit me with a 1, JACKASS, I will know you have lost, jackass ...

Andrew Beckwith: on 2/27/18 at 14:18pm UTC, wrote Dear rating site posting bombers, you still cannot control yourselves. I.e....


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Georgina Woodward: "Lorraine, I don't see why the finding of a great attractor in some data or..." in Agency in the Physical...

Lorraine Ford: "Georgina, Human beings can graphically represent algorithmic..." in Agency in the Physical...

Joe Fisher: "The sad fact is that no physicist has ever studied actual visible physical..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

My Emilly: "Nice post,i like your article,great way of explanation.Looking for more..." in Collapsing Physics: Q&A...

Chris Roger: "Hi, thanks for your nice article. It's really detailed and helpful gmail..." in What Is Fundamental? –...

Chris Roger: "Superb Information, I really appreciated with it, This is fine to read and..." in SciMeter: A New Way to...

Philip Chester: "Good post. I find out something new and challenging on articles I..." in New Online Course:...

Joe Fisher: "Dear FQXi.org Members, Reality am fundamental. Reality am not..." in Ed Witten on the Nature...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

Usurping Quantum Theory
The search is on for a fundamental framework that allows for even stranger links between particles than quantum theory—which could lead us to a theory of everything.

Fuzzballs v Black Holes
A radical theory replaces the cosmic crunchers with fuzzy quantum spheres, potentially solving the black-hole information paradox and explaining away the Big Bang and the origin of time.

Whose Physics Is It Anyway? Q&A with Chanda Prescod-Weinstein
Why physics and astronomy communities must take diversity issues seriously in order to do good science.

Why Time Might Not Be an Illusion
Einstein’s relativity pushes physicists towards a picture of the universe as a block, in which the past, present, and future all exist on the same footing; but maybe that shift in thinking has gone too far.

The Complexity Conundrum
Resolving the black hole firewall paradox—by calculating what a real astronaut would compute at the black hole's edge.


FQXi FORUM
July 20, 2018

CATEGORY: FQXi Essay Contest - Spring, 2017 [back]
TOPIC: 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 [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:02 GMT
Essay Abstract

We are looking at comparison of two action integrals and we identify the Lagrangian multiplier as setting up a constraint equation (on cosmological expansion). In FFP 15, in the Author’s presentation, one of the two compared action integrals was from Hambler’ Quantum Gravity reference, while another was given as similar to the action principle of the Hilbert idea of General Relativistic derivation of the Einstein Field Equations. What we have done is to replace the Hambler Quantum gravity reference based action integral with a result straight from John Klauder’s “Enhanced Quantization” tome. In doing so, with also a nod to Thanu Padamabhan’s treatment of the inflaton, we then commence to initiate an explicit bound upon the cosmological constant. The further approximation is to use the inflaton results, and conflate them with John Klauder’s Action principle for a way to , if we have the idea of a potential well, generalized by Klauder, with a wall of space time in the Pre Planckian regime to ask what bounds the Cosmological constant prior to inflation. We argue this is the most important fundamental question in physics today, for reasons we elaborate upon in the conclusion. Section 6 details my actual answers to the essay’s ideas, in lieu of the creation of this answer to the cosmological constant due to enhanced quantization.

Author Bio

Live in New York state part of the year with trips as a guest instructor to Chongqing, PRC, where I perform the duties of a visiting professor and researcher in gravitational physics. Received PhD in 2001 at the U of Houston, and a frequent visitor to conferences, the last being Frontiers in Fundamental physics 15 in Spain this last November, 2017

Download Essay PDF File

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:23 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 21, 2017 @ 21:26 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:03 GMT
Hi Andrew, Your knowledge in math and physics is very apparent from this paper. You state the cosmological constant is fundamental. Have you derived our universe from just this constant? Did you derive the additional basic physical parameters from the cosmological constant? Don't the physical constants have to be associated with some physical reality. Would those physical realities be considered fundamental also?

Also it seems unusual that the most fundamental parameter would be the cosmological constant - why not the speed of light?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:56 GMT
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-con
stant-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

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 00:58 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 01:04 GMT
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_accelerat
ing.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.

Bookmark and Share


John R. Cox replied on Dec. 27, 2017 @ 15:02 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 01:08 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share


Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 01:48 GMT
I agree with all you said about dark energy and its relationship with the cosmological constant.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 01:50 GMT
And that, from an observational stand point is the reason for the huge importance of the cosmological constant, Scott, from an OBSERVATIONAL stand point

Bookmark and Share


Scott S Gordon replied on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 00:08 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 00:42 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 00:43 GMT
in short, no need for quinessence

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Dec. 22, 2017 @ 03:18 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Scott S Gordon wrote on Dec. 25, 2017 @ 01:30 GMT
No Problem Andy - Like I said - I stated it for the record!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


John R. Cox wrote on Dec. 26, 2017 @ 16:31 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Dec. 26, 2017 @ 17:19 GMT
preserving the consistency of physical law from cycle to cycle

avoiding having a collapsing universe

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Dec. 26, 2017 @ 17:21 GMT
otherwise one would have the cascade of baby universes with most of them non viable

Bookmark and Share



Philip Gibbs wrote on Dec. 29, 2017 @ 15:00 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Dec. 29, 2017 @ 15:29 GMT
It leads to a bounce. Good question. That is part of the implied conclusion

Bookmark and Share


Wayne R Lundberg replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 23:59 GMT
... 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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Philip Gibbs replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 15:28 GMT
Wayne, you mean T-duality provides the bounce. That is quite possible.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on Jan. 3, 2018 @ 21:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Stefan Weckbach wrote on Jan. 6, 2018 @ 13:21 GMT
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?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 09:07 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 17:52 GMT
Thanks also to you for the elaborate answer.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 18:04 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 18:24 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share


Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 08:59 GMT
"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!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Stefan Weckbach replied on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 09:01 GMT
ups, should be read as - good luck!!!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 10, 2018 @ 03:39 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share



Steve Dufourny wrote on Jan. 8, 2018 @ 22:11 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 9, 2018 @ 04:09 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share



austin fearnley wrote on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 16:03 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
Austin, please doth e bring up the Rasch method

thanks

Andrew

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 16:11 GMT
oops, please do bring up the Rasch method. You are correct. I do not know of it

thanks

Andrew

Bookmark and Share


austin fearnley replied on Jan. 12, 2018 @ 18:15 GMT
I am glad you are interested in hearing more on Rasch. The experts are at http://winsteps.com/winsteps.htm and at https://www.rasch.org/ .

I have used some Rasch programs but am not an expert in writing the model or the software.

The Rasch model https://www.rasch.org/memo19662.pdf claims to make rating measurements on a ratio scale equivalent to scales in the physical sciences,...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


austin fearnley wrote on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 00:22 GMT
They work for me, but they are two links, rather than one, to two sources of Rasch software and expertise ...

http://winsteps.com/winsteps.htm

and

https://www.rasch.org/

Does that help? If not I will look up more sources.

Best wishes

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 00:36 GMT
yes they do work. Thank you.

Not a criticism, but the links appear to be linked to data analysis, and can you explain the linkage to cosmology?

Pardon me being so tone deaf. I have been ill for 20 hours and have been sleeping most of the time

Tomorrow, I should be able to understand your point

Bookmark and Share


austin fearnley replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 03:36 GMT
I sympathise and empathise fully with you and hope you are now getting some sleep. I am in my fourth week of flu. I sent in my contest essay when the flu was at its worst. I went to bed tonight but was too ill to sleep and so am typing this three hours after midnight.

I think I am not explaining myself well. I am possibly the only person who sees any relevance of Rasch analysis to Penrose's CCC. There are no Rasch papers written, as far as I know, pertaining to cosmology. Rasch analysis is used for tasks such as item analysis in examinations and analysing questionnaire scales. Quite often measurements or ratings get added and averaged etc without much care about the nature of the rating scale. The Rasch analysis aims to improve the quality of the scale of the results, for example by adding or averaging modified ratings rather than adding the raw ratings.

Forget the previous links that I listed.

Try the wiki website:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasch_model

for an overview of the Rasch model.

However, the only Rasch paper that I can show you which is not using Rasch in a standard psychometric context is my own paper at

http://vixra.org/abs/1609.0329

In that paper you can see a number of metrics made by the Rasch model. Some of these metrics break down. I am suggesting that these metrics break down possibly for the same reason that the metric breaks down at the end of a Penrose CCC cycle. And that reason is the nature of the data is too perfectly Guttman, with too little error in the data. This idea does make a bold assumption that the universe's space metric can somehow be constructed and destructed in a similar manner to running a Rasch analysis! And maybe this is too off-beat a step for you to want to follow it further? If so, that would be understandable.

Best wishes

Austin

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 13, 2018 @ 13:58 GMT
quote from your Vixra paper

This paper shows that a Rasch analysis compresses its location parameter space according to the level of

uncertainty in making judgements within that space. The more uncertain the judgements, the more compressed

are the points on the scale. The more uncertain the judgements the more that the location parameters are close to

one another so that uncertainty in making judgements is equivalent to homogeneity in positions of objects.

Dear sir, the point of this appears to be connected to the idea of avoiding space-time singularities.

Is this the interpretation you are seeking?

Thanks for your input

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 14, 2018 @ 22:52 GMT
Dear Professor Andrew Beckwith,

My research has concluded that Nature must have devised the only permanent real structure of the Universe obtainable for the real Universe existed for millions of years before man and his finite complex informational systems ever appeared on earth. The real physical 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.

Joe Fisher, ORCID ID 0000-0003-3988-8687. Unaffiliated

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on Jan. 18, 2018 @ 00:32 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 06:07 GMT
quoting upon what I said in your essay discussion

quote

Edwin

I have to commend you on a witty essay, and I liked it enough so I gave you a grade of 8. i.e. very well done

However, this is my nit.

The initial time step, call it either delta t, is either intrinsic within a system as done by Barbour in his essay about emergent time, or it is super imposed upon the system say by cyclic cosmological intervention from prior universes upon our present universe.

In essence, I would like to have a clear distinguishment made between emergent time, as stated by Barbour, or by some other agency, say as in cyclic conformal cosmology (penrose)

Aside from these nits, I frankly felt your essay was the most enjoyable one I have encountered in this contest and I am saving it as a gem.

Just because I raise this issue does not mean I disapprove. On the contrary I give you high marks and am asking for an extension of your dialogue to include the distinguishable choice I am referring to.

Andrew

end of quote

Answering you was a pleasure, Edwin, but the choice I made was to include in time as in the form of Barbour,

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

And the super structure I used was to focus upon the cosmological constant as I referenced it, as a way to initiate the placing of time as I saw it in the present cosmos.

Hence, I worked with forming the cosmological constant, as a bench mark for initial conditions enabling the development of time as given by

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

What may surprise you. Edwin, was that I initially was to make my essay about time,and shifted to the cosmological constant as referred to in my essay after reviewing what I know of time, as a way to conjecture out an initial structure consistent with

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.3489.pdf

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 07:09 GMT
Edwin

I derived all of my equations, but point of fact is that due to brevity requirements put in the final derivations as my results from a discussion stand point

Putting in the full derivations would have added another 4 pages to this document I gave for FXQI, but it would not have added one whit to the point I was trying to make

Should you want it later, I will re write this document with ALL the steps included (four more pages). but just so you know the results were NOT conocted out of thin air

Andrew

Bookmark and Share


Edwin Eugene Klingman replied on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 00:21 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Satyavarapu Naga Parameswara Gupta wrote on Jan. 22, 2018 @ 17:57 GMT
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...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Jan. 24, 2018 @ 04:42 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 00:50 GMT
Johnathan

The reason why I did not go into the full ramifications of John Klauders work is because it would have turned the topic into purely mathematical physics, and I felt this was not the place to do it. For FQXI

It was a judgement call. Within my ability but deemed to technically elaborate for this contest as far as cited rules of the road for essays.

Andrew

Bookmark and Share



Christian Corda wrote on Jan. 26, 2018 @ 16:47 GMT
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.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Jan. 27, 2018 @ 04:15 GMT
your kind words are most appreciated. You are a gentleman and a scholar, Christian

Andrew

Bookmark and Share



Joe Fisher wrote on Jan. 29, 2018 @ 16:10 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 5, 2018 @ 14:46 GMT
Joe. it is not your place to put messages like what you did on my own page.

I sincerely ask you to let the vetting system do what it will and understand that in doing what you did, you degraded the import of what you are trying to present in your own essay

Good luck

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Bookmark and Share



Anonymous wrote on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 15:46 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Peter Jackson replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 15:48 GMT
dammit, logged me out! At least it's not punctiuated with 'n's and no gaps as mine are at present!

P

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 7, 2018 @ 17:23 GMT
much appreciated Peter

I.e. the reply window as far as fqxi is really short, and I have the same problem!

Andrew

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:10 GMT
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 ψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t)|p,r) then the operators bf p and bf r (bf before letter stands for operators) act on the wave function

bf pbf rψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t) bf |pbf r|p,r) = (ψ(t)| bf pr|p,r) = pr(ψ(t)|p,r)

and similarly I can write

bf rbf pψ(p,r,t) = (ψ(t)| bf rbf p|p,r) = (ψ(t)| bf rp|p,r) =rp(ψ(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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 02:27 GMT
THANKS FOR THE REPLY. I AM SEEKING A REAL DISCUSSION OF THE PHYSICS BASICS IN THIS ENDEAVOR.

Bookmark and Share



Wayne R Lundberg wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 00:13 GMT
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

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Cristinel Stoica wrote on Feb. 8, 2018 @ 07:23 GMT
Dear Andrew,

Thank you very much for reading and for commenting the ideas from my essay.

You wrote "I would like it very much if you reviewed and commented on my essay, December 21, using this analogy to rate and review why I used John Klauders enhanced quantization. Awaiting your reply. i.e. this is a very relevant insight."

You seem to approach inflation and the problem of the cosmological constant using Klauder's quantization to obtain a bound on the cosmological constant. You seem to get this by equating Klauder's action and that of Padmabhan for inflation. You derive from this a bounce to avoid the cosmic singularity in pre-Plankian regime. I'm happy for your result on what you consider to be "THE outstanding problem and question of physics today", congratulations! I say this as a humble spectator of inflation and Klauder quantization, not being actively involved in either, so I don't know how useful my comments are to you, but I hope they help. I hope you'll get more relevant comments from Klauder himself. Success with your work and the contest!

Best regards,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 13:12 GMT
Hello Mr Beckwith,

What a wonderful general essay.I loved how you take the problem of this quantum gravitationa and how you link with the pre planckian era and this inflation.One of my favorite.I asked me if you have already thought about the spherical coordinates and the lagrange euler method and also in considering the motions orbital and spinal.In all case your essay is relevant, I am wishing you all the best in this contest.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 20, 2018 @ 13:21 GMT
The kinetic and potential énergies also can converge with the diagrams of Feynman, and if this Dark matter exists and that we insert it also in this puzzle, we can have a relevant road to quantize this quantum weakest force.It seems that this force is not electromagntic.It is hypothetical but this DM seems an important piece of puzzle even at this pre planckian era where all was one.I consider even that aether is gravitational and correlatede with this reasoning.If the action is an important piece of puzzle and that this DM does not interact with our ordinary barynic matter, so it is a big puzzle all this and how to find these particles? The potential and kinetic énergies and the motions can be better understood in superimposing this gravitation to our standard model, but how ? In all case thanks for your relevant essay, I learn in the same time also,

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:58 GMT
Hi, Steve

I appreciate your kind words, I am merely trying to outline a theory which takes into account having a non singular, spherical geometry ( or roughly that) in initial configurations.

Here is an update as to the intentions

Using Klauder’s Enhanced Quantization for a Bound to the Cosmological Constant, to Obtain a Nonzero Graviton Mass, in the Early Universe, and Generation of (Heavy) Gravity Which is Consistent from Cycle to Cycle.

Authors: Andrew Beckwith

We are looking at comparison of two action integrals and we identify the Lagrangian multiplier as setting up a constraint equation (on cosmological expansion). What we have done is to replace the Hamber Quantum gravity reference-based action integral with a result from John Klauder’s “Enhanced Quantization” . In doing so, with Padamabhan’s treatment of the inflaton, we then initiate an explicit bound upon the cosmological constant. The other approximation is to use the inflaton results and conflate them with John Klauder’s Action principle for a way to, if we have the idea of a potential well, generalized by Klauder, with a wall of space time in the Pre Planckian-regime to ask what bounds the Cosmological constant prior to inflation. And, get an upper bound on the mass of a graviton. We conclude with a re do of a multiverse version of the Penrose cyclic conformal cosmology to ascertain how this mass of a heavy graviton is consistent from cycle to cycle.

Comments: 7 Pages. for possible submission to Marcel Grossman 15, as an entry

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 21, 2018 @ 04:59 GMT
See

http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0262

Bookmark and Share


Steve Dufourny replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 11:03 GMT
Hello Mr Beckwith,

Thanks for sharing.It seems a good road to better understand this inflation and this gravitation. I asked me if the gravitons which are bosons can be considered for this quantum weakest force.The problemm seems that they are bosons and that if this QG is not baryonic, so these gravitons are not the answer.This dark matter intrigues me a lot, I prefer to consider it instead of considering the MOND of Milgrom.Your works are relevant Mr Beckwith, a real pleasure to read these lines of reasoning, general.

Best Regards

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 22, 2018 @ 17:41 GMT
see if this is informative

http://vixra.org/abs/1802.0305

Using “Enhanced Quantization” to Bound the Cosmological Constant, (For a Bound-on Graviton Mass), by Comparing Two Action Integrals(one Being from General Relativity) at the Start of Inflation

Authors: Andrew Beckwith

We are looking at comparison of two action integrals and we identify the Lagrangian...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 12:52 GMT
I wish to protest what was a case of rate bombing of my essay which knocked it from 6.8 to 6.4. This sort of bombing should not be allowed and I will contact FQXI and make my protest official.

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:00 GMT
I have already emailed Foster, with the following complaint

quote

I am extremely angry

My essay on the last 24 hours was rate bombed and kicked from 6.8 to 6.4

This should NOT be allowed.

Please find out who did it. I am furious,.

End of quote

Cease and desist

I did not rate bomb other essays, please have the decency required

to stop this behavior.

To the person who did it, what you did is dishonorable.

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Bookmark and Share


Cristinel Stoica replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 16:33 GMT
Dear Andrew,

I emailed fqxi too about this. These massive downvotings denote both lack of integrity and violation of the rules of the contest. I was affected too, with the same difference in the last 20 hours alone, and other bombs spread in time in the last week and the entire duration, but with less frequency. I noticed Karen Crowther was affected too. Definitely others too, but this is what I saw. In terms of position and chances to qualify in the finals the result in your case seem to be devastating. I will write on Karen's page to inform her, please do the same, maybe she will write to the organizers too. and if there are others affected that you know, please do the same.

Good luck,

Cristi

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:12 GMT
Put in as a follow up comment

quote

I have put it as a comment on the end of my topic essay

I did not rate bomb other essays, i.e. those whom have

issues should refrain from doing it.

Completely dishonorable.

end of quote

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 13:13 GMT
Please refrain from rate bombing

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 14:35 GMT
If further rate bombing occurs, I will say this. you whom are doing it are abusing this system and you are cowards.

For your information, an abbreviated version of this essay, with a different orientation has been submitted to the Gravity foundation contest, and so you whom have done rate bombing have only led me to have my voice heard in a different forum.

I did not expect to win this contest. I did not expect this last minute cowwardly behavior.

It is too bad for you who did this cowardly behavior, but my essay has been already accepted by George Rideout of the gravity foundation as an entry.

IMO you failed to shut me up

In addition, a variant of this essay will be put up in Rencontres de Moriond.,

Take that for what it is worth, you rate bombing coward

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 15:50 GMT
http://moriond.in2p3.fr/cosmo/2018/participants.php

Dear rate bombing coward.

Please observe that I have a spot on this list

Also, coward the following will be presented in

Moriond

YOU LOOSE

Using “Enhanced Quantization” to Bound the Cosmological Constant, (For a Bound-on Graviton Mass), by Comparing Two Action Integrals(one Being from General Relativity) at the Start of Inflation

Authors: Andrew Beckwith

We are looking at comparison of two action integrals and we identify the Lagrangian multiplier as setting up a constraint equation (on cosmological expansion). This is a direct result of the fourth equation of our manuscript which unconventionally compares the action integral of General relativity with the second derived action integral, which then permits equation 5, which is a bound on the Cosmological constant. What we have done is to replace the Hamber Quantum gravity reference-based action integral with a result from John Klauder’s “Enhanced Quantization” . In doing so, with Padamabhan’s treatment of the inflaton, we then initiate an explicit bound upon the cosmological constant. The other approximation is to use the inflaton results and conflate them with John Klauder’s Action principle for a way to, if we have the idea of a potential well, generalized by Klauder, with a wall of space time in the Pre Planckian-regime to ask what bounds the Cosmological constant prior to inflation. And, get an upper bound on the mass of a graviton. We conclude with a redo of a multiverse version of the Penrose cyclic conformal cosmology to show how this mass of a heavy graviton is consistent from cycle to cycle. All this is possible due to equation 4. And we compare all this with results of reference [1] in the conclusion.

Comments: 10 Pages. For possible inclusion into FFP 15, pending acceptance by Jesus Cancier, of Alicante, Spain, and the FFP 15 committee

Download: PDF

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:55 GMT
proof I got an essay in the Gravity foundation contest

From: George M., Jr. Rideout

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 2:15 PM

Subject: Re: Fwd: https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-es
says-on-gravitation/

To: rwill9955b@gmail.com

Thank you very much!

G. Rideout

In a message dated 2/10/2018 11:55:54 AM Eastern Standard Time, rwill9955b@gmail.com writes:

please consider this an entry into your gravity contest

Andrew

---------- Forwarded message ----------

From: Andrew Beckwith

Date: Sat, Feb 10, 2018 at 11:08 AM

Subject: https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-es
says-on-gravitation/

To: andrew beckwith

https://www.gravityresearchfoundation.org/2017-awards-for-es
says-on-gravitation/

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 25, 2018 @ 21:56 GMT
Whomever bombed me, you are NOT shutting my involvement in presenting ideas.

GOOD DAY

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:39 GMT
More despicable cowardice. My rating dropped 3 points

IF YOU GIVE ME DUE TO BOMBING A 4 BY THE TIME THIS IS FINISHED, YOU HAVE SHOWN HOW INFERIOR YOU ARE

BRING IT ON. THE IDEAS WILL BE PRESENTED ELSE WHERE

YOU WHO ARE DOING IT LOST. I HAD MY SAY AND I WILL NOT BE SHUT UP BY YOU,

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 01:41 GMT
GO PILE IT ON,. I DARE YOU,. AND IN THE END YOU HAVE LOST. LOSER

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 11:15 GMT
Why I was so blunt about last minute rate BOMBING

I never expected to win this contest.

I did expect a discussion of ideas

In doing the rate bombing, two community members showed

a complete disregard as to the premise of DISCUSSION

All you have done is to try to silence a point of view and

in this, you have FAILED.

In this, I can say in the Gravity foundation contest, and

in Rencontres De Moriond that I will continue with this venue

and hope for some sort of impact.

In doing rate bombing, all you did, is to make me MORE

willing to present what I have to say and you did not

succeed in censoring a point of view.

You have neglected your obligation to discuss IDEAS and

in this you have FAILED.

Wear it.

You have not stopped me from presentation

As I did NOT expect to win, or to be in the FQXI book

in Springer, I have no complaints, as to what the

RESULTS of my contest entry, per se

I am APPALLED at what rate bombing shows as far as violation

of Scientific ethics and also of the cowardice shown by

people too unwilling to discuss basics

In the end, all you did, was to show YOUR weakness

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 13:38 GMT
I am going out for a dental appointment.

Wear this, essay bombers

A. Rencontres de Moriond

B. Frontiers of Fundamental physics 15

C. Gravity foundation, Grideout as chair

I doubt you whom bombed me would be able to get in, and

don't deny it

I will hope you enjoy your lives, as you failed to shut me down.

Good luck

Andrew Beckwith, PhD

Bookmark and Share



richard kingsley nixey wrote on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:12 GMT
Andrew,

Peter J says he's complained in the past suggesting a simple provision, but was ignored. Just a rule that 1's without posts may get put back on the scorers essay. I agree. The more who complain the better. His rating of mine put it above his, mine on his reversed it back. That feels better than I imagine 1 bombing does.

He directed me to and recommended your essay. I confess I felt some of the language more obscure than ideal for the 'SciAm' reader target, but otherwise excellent and I agree worth a top score. Adding to your 6.1 now.

Very best

Richard

PS If you haven't read & rated Peters I can tell you I've studied QM for some time, have spent many days checking it through, and his past essays. It's a bit complex at first sight but works brilliantly. That really is fundalmentally revolutionary. I'm disgusted with the limited & entrenched views of 4 of 5 academics here. I hope you're not one!

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 26, 2018 @ 20:48 GMT
thank you for your kind words. No I am NOT a hide bound academic,.And yes I did rate ALL the essays. The lowest grade I gave, generally was a 6

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 14:18 GMT
Dear rating site posting bombers, you still cannot control yourselves. I.e. my grade moved from 6.4 to 6.2

When you GET IT, that my entry, in terms of ideas will be posted in its entirety in Rencontres de Moriond, La Thuile, Italy, you may get a brain.

All you are doing,when you refuse to read my entry is confirm what a worm you are

Too bad. This idea is going to be in Rencontres de Moriond

Cry me a river. I hear a violin sobbing

YOU LOST

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 14:20 GMT
Each time you hit me with a 1, JACKASS, I will know you have lost, jackass

How many of you are out there, gnashing your teeth in fury because you cannot just bear that someone has another venue to present ideas?

What sonnet of frustration must be in your worthless soul, as you howl?

Too bad, my record will outlast yours, o great master of the 1 point rating bomb

Make my day

Bookmark and Share



Peter Jackson wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 19:15 GMT
Andrew,

Shame yours didn't make it in. I did roust up some support. I calculate mine was hit by five or six 1's. I suspect most were, though you were hit hard at the end, as it seems were Peter Cameron, Chandra Roy.. Gordon Watson & Sue Lingo among others, also dropping like stones.

No point getting worked up about it as it means little anyway. If you look at previous scores and prizes you'll see we don't qualify anyway (not being 'hidebound academics'!) Yours was probably also a bit techie for the stated 'SciAm' reader target. Nice you've got it published anyway.

I see Richard mentioned I've proposed a solution to 1 bombs. If we all batter Brendan we may get some action but the judges don't give a damn about scores anyway.

I've been planning a trim & update of my 2013 HJ paper on galaxy cyclic evolution (including deriving bars) so may perhaps pop you a copy through when drafted to see if you think it suitable for 'Galaxies'. Not sure if you saw the original & had any thoughts or comments?

Very best

Peter

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 19:31 GMT
I am going to make the bastards 1 bombing people look very bad, by complaining. I.e. I got hit by about 7 1 bombs, in this contest. Seven of them.

IMO I am doing my best to highlight the problem

Andrew

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 19:32 GMT
Yes,please send me your paper at rwill9955b@gmail.com

Bookmark and Share


Author Andrew Beckwith replied on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 20:40 GMT
specifically, the last 1 point bombing occurred on February 27 the day AFTER the contest ended.

I am going to send this note to the contest organizers and insist that the last 1 point bomb be rescinded as an abuse of the FQXI system

Bookmark and Share



Author Andrew Beckwith wrote on Feb. 27, 2018 @ 21:05 GMT
specifically, the last 1 point bomb was made on my essay on February 27, the day after the contest ended. In doing so, the person who did it broke the rules of the fqxi contest

Bookmark and Share



Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Mar. 1, 2018 @ 00:32 GMT
Really the problem is the whole idea of giving numerical scores or votes. It is one thing to offer critiques of essays, but giving numerical scores to these papers becomes problematic. It is not going to happen often that finding a flaw in a paper is going to be greeted by the author with "Thank you, and I will give a fair vote for your essay without any influence from your observation."

LC

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.