Vacuum fluctuation, microcyclic “universes” and the cosmological constant problem

Qingdi Wang1 and William G. Unruh1 1Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Z1 We point out that the standard formulation of the cosmological constant problem itself is prob- lematic since it is trying to apply the very large scale homogeneous cosmological model to very small (Planck) scale phenomenon. At small scales, both the spacetime and the vacuum stress energy are highly inhomogeneous and wildly fluctuating. This is a version of Wheeler’s “spacetime foam”. We show that this “foamy” structure would produce a large positive contribution to the average macroscopic spatial curvature of the Universe. In order to cancel this contribution to match the ob- servation, the usually defined effective cosmological constant λeff = λB + 8πGhρi has to take a large negative value. The spacetime dynamics sourced by this large negative λeff would be similar to the cyclic model of the universe in the sense that at small scales every point in space is a “micro-cyclic universe” which is following an eternal series of oscillations between expansions and contractions. Moreover, if the bare cosmological constant λB is dominant, the size of each “micro-universe” would increase a tiny bit at a slowly accelerating rate during each micro-cycle of the oscillation due to the weak parametric resonance effect produced by the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum stress energy tensor. In this way, the large cosmological constant generated at small scales is hidden at observable −122 scale and no fine-tuning of λB to the accuracy of 10 is needed. This at least resolves the old cosmological constant problem and suggests that it is the quantum vacuum fluctuations serve as the dark energy which is accelerating the expansion of our Universe.

I. INTRODUCTION quantum vacuum would also be fluctuating and becomes highly inhomogeneous. Thus the gravitational effect pro- The cosmological constant problem is widely regarded duced by the huge vacuum stress energy is still huge, but as one of the major obstacles to further progress in fun- is confined to small scales where each spatial point os- damental physics (e.g., see [1–5]). This problem arises at cillates between expansion and contraction with different the intersection between quantum mechanics and general phase from neighboring spatial points. The expansion relativity. Basically, the uncertainty principle of quan- and the contraction almost cancel in this effect except tum mechanics predicts that the quantum fields vacuum the expansion wins out a little bit due to the weak para- possesses a huge amount of energy. Then the equivalence metric resonance effect produced by the vacuum fluctua- principle of general relativity requires that this huge en- tions. This tiny net expansion accumulates on cosmologi- ergy must gravitate to produce a large gravitational ef- cal scale, gives the observed slowly accelerating expansion fect. However, this supposed large gravitational effect is of the Universe. not observed. The discrepancy between theory and ex- In [6, 7] the calculations are performed for a highly periment is as high as 122 orders of magnitude depending simplified metric: on the high energy cutoff and other factors. This is un- ds2 = −dt2 + a2(t, x) dx2 + dy2 + dz2
. (1) doubtedly the largest discrepancy in all of science and is thus called the “worst theoretical prediction in the his- However, quantum fluctuations posses rich structures. tory of physics”. One does not expect the spacetime to take the above sim- Most proposed solutions to the cosmological constant ple form. In this paper, we start our calculations from problem are either trying to modify quantum mechanics the most general metric in some way to make the vacuum energy small, trying

arXiv:1904.08599v3 [gr-qc] 21 Dec 2019 2 2 2 a a b b to modify general relativity in some way to make the ds = −N dt + hab(dx + N dt)(dx + N dt), (2) huge energy not gravitate or even pleading the anthropic principle. Unlike these proposals in literature, in [6, 7] where the spatial metric hab depends on both time and we made a proposal for addressing this problem without space. This metric defines a 3 + 1 decomposition of the modifying either quantum mechanics or general relativ- spacetime with spatial slices {t = Constants}. The lapse ity. function N and the shift vector N a are not dynamical In our proposal, the vacuum energy is still large as pre- quantities. Starting from an initial slice Σ0 defined by dicted by quantum mechanics and this huge energy does t = 0, different choices of N and N a give different spatial gravitate according to general relativity. However, the slices but they describe the physically equivalent space- density of energy in the quantum vacuum is not a con- time. We are going to adopt the most convenient choice stant as usually assumed but is constantly fluctuating N = 1, N a = 0, i.e. the Gaussian normal coordinates with its magnitude of fluctuation as big as its expecta- (62) to study the dynamical evolution of the spacetime. tion value. As a result, the gravitational effect of the It turns out that this is not a straightforward general- quantum vacuum would be different from what people ization of our old papers [6, 7]. A new scenario which is previously thought. The resulting spacetime sourced by different in some crucial ways is necessary. 2

In the old scenario presented in [6, 7], the bare cosmo- to be Lorentz invariant and thus the expectation value logical constant λB in the Einstein field equations is set hTabi is supposed to satisfy the vacuum equation of state to zero for the highly simplified metric (1). However, in the new scenario we are going to present in this paper, hTabi = −hρigab, (4) λB can not be set to zero for the general metric (2). The metric (2) allows more freedoms for the spacetime fluc- where the expectation value of the vacuum energy density tuations and we find that these fluctuations would give hρi has to be a constant due to the conservation of the a a large positive contribution to the average macroscopic stress energy tensor ∇ Tab = 0. spatial curvature of the Universe. In order to match the Then the gravitational effect of the vacuum would be equivalent to a cosmological constant that the Einstein observed small spatial curvature, one has to take λB to large negative values to cancel it. It will turn out that equations (3) can be written as λ does not need to be carefully chosen (not fine-tuned). B G + λ g = 0, (5) Therefore, we are going to keep the bare cosmological ab eff ab constant λB from the beginning and take it to have large where the effective cosmological constant λeff is defined negative values. Unlike the old scenario where we take by the high energy cutoff Λ to large positive values to obtain the alternatively expanding and contracting spacetime λeff = λB + 8πGhρi. (6) at small scales, we can obtain the similar picture for a p fixed Λ if its value is small compared to |λB|. There In principle, all known and unknown fundamental mat- is also the weak parametric resonance effect produced by ter fields would contribute to hρi. The dominant contri- the vacuum stress energy tensor fluctuations which may bution to hρi comes from the quantum zero-point ener- drive the accelerating expansion of the Universe. The gies of these fundamental fields. Without the knowledge new scenario also avoids some of the shortcomings of the of all fundamental fields, it is impossible to determine the old one. This will be explained in Sec.VIII D. exact value of hρi. However, the standard effective field This paper is organized as follows: in Sec.II we review theory arguments predict that, in general, hρi takes the the standard formulation of the cosmological constant form problem and point out where is wrong with this formula- tion; in Sec.III we explain the approach we are going to hρi ∼ Λ4, (7) use in this paper; in Sec.IV we study the effect of small scale spacetime fluctuation on the averaged spatial cur- if we trust our theory up to a certain high energy cutoff vature; in Sec.V we derive the key evolution equation of Λ. This result could have been guessed by dimensional this paper; in sec.VI we study the effect of small scale analysis and the numerical constants which have been spacetime fluctuation; in Sec.VII we study the effect of neglected will depend on the precise knowledge of the vacuum stress energy tensor fluctuation; in Sec.VIII we fundamental fields under consideration [8]. The exact discuss the issue of the definition of vacuum state in our value of the cutoff Λ is also not known. If it is taken to wildly fluctuating spacetime, the validity of our classi- be the Planck energy, i.e. Λ = 1, we would have cal treatment of the spacetime evolution, the issue of the singularities appeared in this scenario, explain how the hρi ∼ 1, (8) new scenario avoids a couple of shortcomings of the old where Planck units has been used for convenience. one and list some open questions arose from our model; One crucial assumption in the formulation of the cos- in Sec.IX we summarize the approach and the result of mological constant problem is that the spacetime is ho- this paper and make the conclusions. mogeneous and isotropic, i.e. one assumes the standard FLRW metric of cosmology:

II. PROBLEMS OF THE COSMOLOGICAL 2 2 2 2 2 2 CONSTANT PROBLEM ds = −dt + a (t)(dx + dy + dz ). (9) The solution to the Einstein equation (5) under this met- The cosmological constant problem arises when one ric is tries to put quantum mechanics and general relativity together to study the gravitational property of quantum a(t) = a(0)eHt, (10) vacuum. Since we do not have a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity yet, the usual assumption is the semi- where classical Einstein equations r a˙ λ H = = ± eff . (11) Gab + λBgab = 8πGhTabi, (3) a 3 where λB is the bare cosmological constant and the Depending on the initial conditions, the Hubble rate H source of gravity is the expectation value of the quan- can be either positive or negative. The “+” sign repre- tum vacuum stress energy tensor. Vacuum is assumed sents an accelerated expanding universe while the “−” 3 sign represents an accelerated contracting universe. The fluctuations driven by the fluctuations of the matter field value of the effective cosmological constant λeff can be vacuum stress energy tensor, the spacetime also expe- determined by the observed rate of the accelerating ex- riences “active” flucutaions due to the quantum nature pansion of the Universe H from the relation (11) that of gravity itself. This was already anticipated by John Wheeler [10, 11] in 1955 that over sufficiently small dis- 2 −122 λeff = 3H = 5.6 × 10 , (12) tances and sufficiently small brief intervals of time, the “very geometry of spacetime fluctuates”. The space- where Planck units has been used for convenience. time would have a foamy, jittery nature and would con- Therefore, the observed value of the effective cosmo- sist of many small, ever-changing, regions. This picture logical constant λeff given by (12) is different from the of highly inhomogeneous fluctuating spacetime is called theoretical value of the vacuum energy density hρi given “spacetime foam”. by (8) by 122 orders of magnitude. Thus, according to Therefore, we should not trust the standard formula- (6), one has to fine-tune λB to a precision of 122 deci- tion of the cosmological constant problem which is based mal places to cancel hρi to match the observations. This on the homogeneous FLRW metric. problem of extreme fine-tuning is the so called cosmolog- ical constant problem [2]. Such a large discrepancy between theory and observa- III. OUR APPROACH tion implies that there must be something wrong in the above standard formulation of the cosmological constant One of the most important features of a quantum sys- problem. tem is the quantum fluctuation due to the uncertainty We have proposed that what is wrong is the neglection principle. We have argued that the standard formula- of the quantum vacuum and the spacetime fluctuaions in tion of the cosmological constant problem missed the im- our previous paper [6]. In the following we give a more portant fluctuations in the spacetime metric and in the comprehensive argument about this point. matter fields vacuum stress energy tensor. In principle, The problem of the standard formulation comes from one should use a quantum theory of gravity to study the trying to apply the very large scale cosmological model effects of these fluctuations. But unfortunately, no satis- to very small (Planck) scale phenomenon. Since the large factory quantum theory of gravity exists yet. contribution to the cosmological constant from the vac- For this reason, we are not trying to quantize gravity uum is generated by very small (Planck) scale quantum in this paper. Instead, we are still using the classical fluctuations, one should also look for answers directly Einstein field equations at that scale [9]. There is no reason to expect the cos- mological FLRW metric (9) is still applicable at such Gµν + λBgµν = 8πGTµν , (14) small scales. In fact, the FLRW metric assumes homo- where both the spacetime metric gµν and the matter geneous matter distribution and spacetime, but at small fields stress energy tensor Tµν are classical. In order scales both the matter field vacuum and the spacetime to capture the essential feature of quantum fluctuations, are highly inhomogeneous and wildly fluctuating. both gµν and Tµν are modeled as classical fluctuating First, the vacuum energy density ρ is not a constant fields. This treatment should at least reveal some quan- because the vacuum is not an eigenstate of the energy tum fluctuation feature of the future satisfactory quan- density operator T00, although it is an eigenstate of the tum theory of gravity. This approximation is known as R 3 Hamiltonian H = dx T00, which is an integral of T00 stochastic gravity [12]. over the whole space. I.e., ρ is not a constant because Technically, we will employ the initial value formula- T00 does not commute with H. So the average energy tion of general relativity (see, e.g., [13, 14]) where the density over a relatively large length scale ( 1/Λ) is spacetime is decomposed as 3-dimensional spacelike hy- nearly constant, but, at small length scales (∼ 1/Λ), ρ persurfaces plus 1-dimensional time to study the effects can not be a constant, it is always fluctuating. In fact, the of the fluctuations in the spacetime metric and in the magnitude of the fluctuation is as large as its expectation matter fields vacuum stress energy tensor. value [6] Let Σt, parameterized by a time function t, be space- like Cauchy surfaces and na be the unit normal vector ∆ρ ∼ hρi. (13) field to Σt. The spacetime metric gab, induces a spatial metric h on each Σ by More detailed analysis shows that these fluctuations are ab t highly inhomogeneous at small scales [6]. In general, hab = gab + nanb. (15) since the vacuum state is not an eigenstate of the stress a a Let t be a vector field satisfying t ∇at = 1 which rep- energy tensor operator, the whole stress energy ten- resenting the “flow of time” throughout the spacetime. sor would be violently fluctuating and highly inhomo- The lapse function N and the shift vector N a, with re- geneous. spect to ta are defined by Then the resulting spacetime sourced by such wlidly a fluctuating and highly inhomogeneous vacuum energy N = −t na, (16) b is not homogeneous. Moreover, besides these “passive” Na = habt . (17) 4

Then the four-dimensional metric gab can be written as where λeff = λB + 8πGhρi is the effective cosmological constant in the standard formulation of the cosmological ds2 = −N 2dt2 + h (dxa + N adt)(dxb + N bdt). (18) ab constant problem defined by (6). ab 2 The extrinsic curvature Kab of the hypersurface Σt is The term KabK − K can be expanded as ˙ related to the time derivative hab of the spatial metric by ab 2 KabK − K 1 −1   ac bd ab cd
K = N h˙ − D N − D N , (19) = h h − h h KabKcd (24) ab 2 ab a b b a X 2 X ik jl ij kl
= MkKij + h h − h h KijKkl, where Da is the derivative operator on Σt associated with i6=j6=k {i,j}6={k,l} hab. In the initial value formulation, the Einstein field equa- where tions are equivalent to six equations for the time evolu- ii jj ij
2 tion of the extrinsic curvature Mk = h h − h , k 6= i 6= j, (25)  ˙ (3) c is the determinant of the submatrix formed by deleting Kab =−N − λBhab + Rab + KKab − 2KacKb the kth row and kth column of the 3×3 symmetric matrix  1   hab, i.e. it is the kth principal minor of hab. Since by −4πGρh − 8πG T − h trT (20) ab ab ab 2 ab definition the metric matrix h is positive definite, we +D D N + N cD K + K D N c + K D N c, have Mk > 0. a b c ab ac b cb a Since general relativity is time reversal invariant that plus the Hamiltonian and momentum constraint equa- for every expanding solution there is a corresponding con- tions tracting solution, i.e., if (hab,Kab) is allowed initial data (3) ab 2 ˜ R − KabK + K = 16πGρ + 2λB, (21) on Σ, so is (hab, −Kab) [9]. Thus, for {i, j}= 6 {k, l}, the a following four pairs of components D Kab − DbK = −8πGJb, (22)

(3) (3) (Kij,Kkl), (Kij, −Kkl), (−Kij,Kkl), (−Kij, −Kkl) where Rab is the 3-dimensional Ricci tensor of Σ, R = ab (3) h Rab is the 3-dimensional Ricci scalar of Σ, K = are equally likely to happen for a large collection of pos- ab a b h Kab is the mean curvature of Σ, ρ = Tabn n , Jb = sible choices of Σ.˜ Then because in general, there is no c a ab −hbTcan and trT = h Tab are the energy density, the particular relationship between the components of the energy flux and the spatial trace of the matter fields, re- extrinsic curvature, we have, for the second term in (24), spectively. the above four cases would statistically cancel each other that the macroscopic spatial average over Σ:˜

ik jl ij kl
IV. THE SPATIAL CURVATURE h h − h h KijKkl Σ˜ = 0, {i, j}= 6 {k, l}. FLUCTUATION (26) Then taking the macroscopic spatial average on both One immediate consequence of the spacetime foam pic- sides of (24) we obtain ture is that the spatial curvature R(3) of the Cauchy sur- ab 2 X 2 face Σt at each point would be large and fluctuating. hKabK − K iΣ˜ = hMkKiji > 0 (27) However, the observed average spatial curvature of the i6=j6=k Universe is very small (flat with only a 0.4 percent mar- ˜ gin of error). So one natural question is: can the large for a large collection of possible choices of Σ. Note that the macroscopic average does not require a very large curvature at small scales averages to small value macro- 100 scopically? volume: a cubic centimeter contains some 10 Planck- size regions. For a given spacetime, there are infinite ways to per- 2 form the 3 + 1 decomposition. Different splitting leads The term hMkKiji in (27) is very large in the wildly (3) fluctuating spacetime. It gives a large positive contri- to different spatial curvature R of Σt, i.e., this ques- (3) tion highly depends on how we choose the spatial slice bution to the average spatial curvature hR iΣ˜ through (23). This implies that, for a large collection of possi- Σt. For example, even for the flat Minkowski spacetime, (3) ble choices of Σ,˜ λ has to take large negative values to there are infinite ways to choose Σt such that R is not eff (3) 1 zero. Therefore, a more precise description about this make hR iΣ˜ small to match the observation : question is: for our fluctuating spacetime, can we find a 1 ab 2 3 + 1 decomposition such that for each Σt, the average λeff ≈ − hKabK − K iΣ˜ < 0. (34) spatial curvature hR(3)i approaches zero? 2 To answer this question, let us start from an arbitrary Cauchy surface Σ.˜ Taking the spatial average of (21) over Σ˜ we get the average spatial curvature 1 It is interesting to apply the same argument to the old highly simplified metric (1) we used in [6]. In this case, the only nonzero (3) ab 2 components of the extrinsic curvature are K = K = K = hR iΣ˜ = 2λeff + hKabK − K iΣ˜ , (23) 11 22 33 5

It seems that this leads to another fine-tuning problem: Note that there is no need to fine-tune λB to make the for the given Cauchy surface Σ,˜ one has to fine-tune λB average spatial curvature of Σ0 to be zero since λB can 1 ab 2 to cancel the large term 8πGhρi + 2 hKabK − K iΣ˜ to take any values in the range given by (36). (3) So far we have found an initial Cauchy surface Σ obtain a small hR iΣ˜ . However, remember that our task 0 is not to pick an arbitrary hypersurface and tune λB to whose average spatial curvature is small. Next question make its average spatial curvature small. Our task is is whether this feature is preserved dynamically. The (3) to find a hypersurface whose average spatial curvature is evolution equation for hRab i is (see, e.g., [14]) small for a given λB. This can be done by the following (3)˙ c procedure. hRab i =−hD Dc(NKab)i − hDaDb(NK)i ˜ We construct a family of hypersurfaces Σs by continu- +hDcD (NK )i + hDcD (NK )i (39) ˜ a cb b ca ously deforming the 3-dimensional hypersurface Σ in the c (3) (3) c (3) c given fluctuating 4-dimensional spacetime. The spatial +hN DcRab i + hRac DbN i + hRcb DaN i averages hK Kab − K2i would then change continu- ab Σ˜ s Although the spacetime is fluctuating, it should have ab 2 ously from hKabK − K iΣ˜ that it would lie in a range the same property everywhere. So that there is not a special spatial direction we should have the spatial aver- hK Kab − K2i ∈ [˜a, ˜b], a,˜ ˜b > 0. (35) ab Σ˜ s ages

We set λB to be in the range: hDaKi = 0, (40) hD K i = 0, (41) ˜b a˜ a bc λ ∈ [− − 8πGhρi, − − 8πGhρi]. (36) (3) B 2 2 hDaR i = 0, (42) hD R(3)i = 0. (43) Then there exists a hypersurface Σ0 in the family of hy- c ab ˜ persurfaces Σs such that We can also choose N, N a such that the spatial averages ab 2 hKabK − K iΣ0 = −2λeff . (37) hNi = 1, (44) hN ai = 0, (45) In this way, we find an initial hypersurface Σ0 for which the average spatial curvature hDaNi = 0, (46) b (3) hDaN i = 0. (47) hR iΣ0 = 0. (38) Then since there is no particular relationships between N a (3) and K(or Kab), N and Rab , all the terms on the right aa˙ so that we have hand side of (39) should be zero that we obtain  2 ab 2 a˙ (3)˙ KabK − K = −6 . (28) hR i = 0. (48) a ab Then the spatial curvature (3) Therefore, if hRab i = 0 at the initial hypersurface Σ0, it  2! (3) a˙ should still be zero afterwards. R = 2 λB + 8πGρ − 3 (29) (3) a The evolution equation for hR i can be obtained from (39) that 2   ∇a  ∇2a  = − ∇ + , (30) a2 a a (3)˙ ab (3) a hR i =−2hNK Rab i − 2hD Da(NK)i where we have used the 00 component of the Einstein equation a b a (3) +2hD D (NKab)i + hN DaR i. (49) G00 = 0 when deriving (30) from (29). For a large collection of initial data on the hypersurface t = 0, since there is not a special Following similar arguments we have the last three terms spatial direction, the average of the gradient terms of a in (30) over the hypersurface t = 0 should approaches zero. So we would on the right side of (49) are zero. As for the first term, (3) have since we have hR i = 0 and there is no particular re- * +! ab  a˙ 2 (3) lationship between the extrinsic curvature Kab, which is hR i = 2 λeff − 3 ≈ 0, (31) a given by the time derivative of hab, and the Ricci curva- and thus ture R(3), which is given by the spatial derivatives of h ,  a˙ 2 ab ab (3) λeff ≈ 3 > 0. (32) ab a we would also have hNK Rab i = 0. Thus we reach the In [6], λB is set to zero, so that the above condition requires a result positive vacuum energy density hR(3)˙ i = 0, (50)  a˙ 2 8πGhρi ≈ 3 > 0 (33) a i.e. the small averaged macroscopic spatial curvature (3) to make sure hR(3)i ≈ 0. hR i is preserved with time. So in this case we get opposite result for the sign of λeff . In Therefore, we have found a spacetime foliation {Σt} addition, hρi can be any sign in this paper since we can always (3) that, the average spatial curvature hR iΣt approaches adjust λ to make hR(3)i ≈ 0. B zero for each Σt. 6

V. THE EVOLUTION EQUATION In this metric, (56) becomes

1 d √ In the last section we have shown that the randomly K = √ h, (58) fluctuating foamy structure of the spacetime would give h dτ a large positive contribution to the averaged spatial cur- vature. In order to obtain the observed small spatial where dτ = Ndt is the proper time of the Eulerian ob- server defined by x = Constant. Note√ that τ is different curvature of the Universe, λeff has to take large negative 1 2 3 values to cancel this contribution. Next we study the for different Eulerian observers. Since h dx ∧dx ∧dx is the spatial volume element, (58) means that K is the dynamics of the spacetime when λeff takes the required negative value. local volume expansion rate of the 3-dimensional hyper- surface Σt observed by the Eulerian observer. To start, we set λeff to satisfy (34) for the given initial hypersurface Σ and a set of randomly chosen initial data We can define a new quantity—the local scale factor 0 a(t, x) by (hab,Kab) on it. Taking the trace of (20) we can obtain the evolution h = a6. (59) equation for the mean curvature K:

 (3) 2  It locally describes the relative “size” of space measured K˙ =−N −3λB + R + K − 12πGρ + 4πGtrT by the Eulerian observer at each point, which is a gener- a a +D DaN + N DaK. (51) alization of the scale factor a(t) in the usual homogeneous FLRW metric (9). The difference is that now a is also Combining the above equation (51) with the Hamiltonian spatial dependent to be able to describe the fluctuating constraint (21) gives 3 da spacetime. Then we would have K = a dτ and from (55)  ab  K˙ =−N −λB + KabK + 4πG (ρ + trT ) we obtain the evolution equation for a observed by the a a Eulerian observer: +D DaN + N DaK. (52) 2  a  It is useful to split the extrinsic curvature Kab into the d a 1 2 D DaN 2 + 2σ − λB + 4πG (ρ + trT ) − a = 0. trace free part σab and the trace part K: dτ 3 N (60) 1 a Kab = σab + Khab. (53) The term D DaN/N in (60) comes from the lapse 3 function N. It represents the effect of external force The trace free part σab is called the shear tensor, its time acting on the Eulerian observer. In fact, the Eulerian evolution can be obtained by combining (20) and (51): observer has acceleration ai = DiN/N (see Eq.(3.17) in  [15]) which is tangent to the spatial slices Σt. There are 1 c (3) 1 (3) external forces acting on the Eulerian observers to main- σ˙ ab =−N Kσab − 2σacσb + Rab − R hab 3 3 tain their constant spatial positions. We should exclude  1   1 the effect of these external forces on the evolution of a so −8πG T − h trT + D D N − h DcD N ab 3 ab a b 3 ab c that a purely describes the gravitational effect produced by the terms σ2, λ and ρ + trT . To do this, we need +N cD σ + σ D N c + σ D N c. (54) B c ab ac b cb a to choose N to be spatially independent to exclude the Plugging (53) into (52) gives effect of the external forces or at least to choose N in such a way that the average  1  K˙ =−N −λ + K2 + 2σ2 + 4πG (ρ + trT ) B  a  3 D DaN a a = 0 (61) +D DaN + N DaK, (55) N where σ2 = 1 σ σab. From (19) we have that the mean 2 ab to make sure the average effect of these external forces extrinsic curvature zero. ˙ ! The simplest choice is N = 1, then the coordinate (57) 1 h a K = − DaN , (56) reduces to the Gaussian normal coordinate N 2h 2 2 a b ds = −dt + habdx dx . (62) where h = det(hab) is the determinant of the spatial met- ric. Then the evolution equation (60) becomes The lapse function N and the shift vector N a are not dynamical quantities, solutions with different choices of a¨ + Ω2a = 0, (63) N and N a are physically equivalent so that N and N a can be freely chosen. We first choose the shift vector where N a = 0. Then the metric (18) becomes 1 2 2 2 a b Ω2 = 2σ2 − λ + 4πG (ρ + trT )
. (64) ds = −N dt + habdx dx . (57) 3 B 7

For simplicity, we are going to use the coordinate (62) the end of Sec.II that the vacuum stress energy tensor in the following sections. Other choices of N describe fluctuation drives the “passive” fluctuation of the space- physically equivalent spacetime. In addition, our analy- time. However, The spacetime still “actively” fluctuates sis using the coordinate(62) will also apply to the coordi- at small scales due to the quantum nature of gravity it- nate (57) since the only difference comes from the term self. a D DaN/N whose average effect is zero. When excluding F , the evolution equation (63) be- For convenience, we rewrite Ω2 as comes

1 1 2 0
Ω2 = 2σ2 − λ0
+ F, (65) a¨ + 2σ − λeff a = 0. (71) 3 eff 3 2 where λ0 and F are defined by The evolution equation for the shear σ in the above eff equation (71) can be obtained by taking time derivative 0 of σ2 and using (54): λeff = λB − 4πGhρ + trT i (66) 2 · 2 (3) ab and (σ ) = −2Kσ − Rab σ , (72) 4πG where the fluctuation of the vacuum stress energy tensor F = (ρ + trT − hρ + trT i) . (67) 3 has also been excluded in the calculation. If the vacuum equation of state (4) is assumed, we Note that by definition we have the expectation value 0 would have λeff = λeff = λB + 8πGhρi < 0. In the following, we are going to study the spacetime dynamics hF i = 0. (68) given by the above coupled equations (71) and (72) when 0 2 0 λeff < 0 . λeff is related to λeff by 2 0 2 1 2
Since σ > 0 and −λeff > 0 that Ω = 3 2σ − λeff 0 must be positive, (71) describes an oscillator with vary- λ = λeff − 4πGh3ρ + trT i (69) eff ing frequency. Thus the solution for a must be oscillating If the usual vacuum equation of state (4) is assumed, we around 0. Correspondingly, the local volume expansion a˙ have rate K = 3 a would also oscillate. It ranges from −∞ to +∞. K > 0 represents expansion while K < 0 repre- 0 λeff = λeff . (70) sents contraction. It jumps discontinuously from −∞ to +∞ each time when a goes across 0. In this process, the Whether the vacuum equation of state (4) is still valid determinant h = a6 ≥ 0 decreases continuously to 0 and at very small (Planck) scales is controversial. The stan- then bounces back to positive values as a crosses 0 (see dard formulation of the cosmological constant problem FIG. 1). Physically, this means, on average, the space lo- assumes that it is valid. Later it will be clear this is not cally collapses to zero size and then immediately bounces important, whether (4) is valid or not does not affect our back. It will then collapse and expand again and again, conclusion. i.e., locally, the space is alternatively switching between Note that the evolution equation (63) does not contain expansion and contraction. spatial derivatives of the metric. Thus it is an ordinary The oscillation behavior of K would also lead to the differential equation whose solution at each spatial point oscillation of the shear σ2. The average value of the sec- x depends only on the initial values a(0, x),a ˙(0, x) and ond term R(3)σab in (54) is zero. So if we neglect this 2 ab the time evolution of Ω (t, x) at x. The solution to a(t, x) term, we would obtain that the average evolution of σ2 at different spatial points explicitly decouple with each roughly goes as other, although implicitly they are not independent since 2 2 −2 R t K(t0,x)dt0 there are correlations between Ω (t, x) at different spatial σ¯2(t, x) ∼ σ (0, x)e 0 . (73) points. As K > 0, i.e., as a is moving away from its equilibrium point a = 0, σ¯2 is decreasing to a minimum until |a| VI. THE EFFECT OF SPACETIME reaches maximum. As K < 0, i.e., as a is moving toward FLUCTUATION its equilibrium point a = 0, σ¯2 is increasing to a maxi- a˙ mum until |a| reaches 0. In fact, since K = 3 a = ±∞ at In order to understand the physical mechanism better, a = 0, we have σ2 = +∞ at a = 0. especially the role played by the spacetime fluctuation, we first exclude the term F in the evolution equation

(63) which represents the vacuum stress energy tensor 2 0 If (4) is not valid at small scales, λeff may not be negative. fluctuation, i.e. use the expectation value of the vacuum However, the most interesting case we are going to study in the stress energy tensor in the Einstein equation. next section VII is when λB is dominant over the matter fields 0 Note that excluding vacuum stress energy fluctuation vacuum stress energy fluctuation. In this case, λeff has to be does not exclude spacetime fluctuation. As explained at negative no matter (4) is valid or not. 8

a

t 0

h

0 t K

3H t FIG. 2. Top: “micro-cyclic universes” shown in a syn- 0 chronous reference frame. The curves a = 0 are singularities where micro “big bounces” happen. The world lines of particles at rest relative to the reference system are vertical lines x = Constants. They are incomplete geodesics which end at the singularities. Along each segment of the geodesics between the singularities is a “micro-universe” which starts FIG. 1. Schematic plots of the oscillations of the local scale with a “micro-big-bang” and ends with a “micro-big-crunch”. factor a, the local determinant h = a6 and the local average a˙ Bottom: homogeneous cyclic universes shown in a syn- expansion rate K = 3 a . As a goes across 0, h decreases continuously to 0 and then increases back to positive values, chronous reference frame (FLRW). The horizontal lines a = 0 are singularities where the “big bounces” happen. The world K jumps discontinuously from −∞ to +∞. The amplitude√ of −λ lines of particles at rest relative to the reference system −β B a grows exponentially with a tiny exponent H = αΛe Λ are vertical lines x = Constants. They are incomplete (Eq.(94)) which gives the slowly accelerating expansion of h geodesics which end at the singularities. The whole space and small average value 3H of K. simultaneously starts with a big bang and ends with a big crunch.

The divergences of K, σ2 signal that the turning points a = 0 at which the space switches from contractions to expansions are actually spacetime singularities. These bang” and ends with a “big crunch” and then a “big singularities are very similar to the big bang singularity. bounce” happens which bounces the “crunch” back to a The alternatively expanding and contracting picture is new “bang” that the cycle starts over again (see FIG. 2). similar to the cyclic model (or oscillating model) of the We are going to discuss the singularities in more detail universe in the sense that every point in space is a “micro- later in Sec. VIII C. cyclic universe” which is following an eternal series of The shear σ2(t, x) measures the local anisotropy of the oscillations. Each “micro-universe” begins with a “big spacetime. In fact, the dynamics given by the local scale 9 factor a(t, x) is only a description after averaging over dif- serve as the “dark energy” to accelerate the expansion of ferent directions. Statistically, the most commonly hap- the Universe. pening picture in the wildly fluctuating spacetime is that F is a linear combination of the components of the the space is locally expanding in some directions and con- vacuum stress energy tensor. It receives contributions tracting in others, with the directions of expansion and from all known and unknown fundamental fields. We are contraction constantly changing. An initial sphere in this going to use a free massive scalar field φ as an example fluctuating spacetime will quickly distort toward an el- to illustrate the key fluctuation properties of F relevant lipsoid with principle axes given by the eigenvectors of to the dynamics of the system. a a σ b, with rate given by the eigenvalues of σ b [13]. In principle, φ should be treated as a quantum operator So far, we have analyzed the local dynamics of the φˆ. However, as explained in Sec. III that we do not have scale factor a and the shear σ2 at a fixed spatial point a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity yet. For this x. At each such point x, the space is alternatively oscil- reason, we are still using the classical Einstein equation lating between expansion and contraction in every direc- (14) in which both the metric and the matter fields are tion and the phases of the oscillations in different direc- classical to study how matter fields vacuum fluctuations tions are commonly different. The global structure of the affect the spacetime dynamics. In order to do this, we spacetime would be these small local structures “glued” are going to model the quantum field φˆ as a classical together. fluctuating field φ to simulate the quantum fluctuations Since on the initial Cauchy surface Σ0, K > 0 and of F . K < 0 are equally possible initial data, we have that in At each spatial point x, quantum fields can be viewed general the initial conditions a(0, x) anda ˙(0, x) for the as an infinite collection of harmonic oscillators. In par- oscillator equation (71) would take different values at dif- ticular, φˆ can be expressed as ferent spatial points. So the phases of these oscillations of a(t, x) at different spatial points would be different. In φˆ(t, x) other words, at any instant of time t, the space would be Z 3 d k 1  −i(ωt−k·x) † +i(ωt−k·x) expanding at one point and contracting at neighboring = √ aˆke +a ˆ e (75) (2π)3/2 k points and vice versa. These phase differences result in a 2ω Z 3   large cancellation between the local expansions and con- d k pˆk = xˆk cos(ωt − k · x) + sin(ωt − k · x) , tractions when performing the macroscopic average over (2π)3/2 ω the hypersurfaces Σt. The macroscopic average does not √ 2 2 require a very large volume: a cubic centimeter contains where ω = k + m and we have used the relations some 10100 Planck-size regions. Therefore, we have the r   r   ω pˆk † ω pˆk average hKi over Σt approaches 0 for any sensible macro- aˆk = xˆk + i , aˆk = xˆk − i (76) scopic average procedure. The observed macroscopic vol- 2 ω 2 ω ume of the space would then approach a constant: to obtain the last line of (75). The vacuum state defined Z √ Z by V = d3x h = d3x|a|3 = Constant. (74) aˆk|0i = 0, for any k, (77) Thus in this spacetime the large cosmological constant is not an eigenstate of the operator coefficientsx ˆ andp ˆ . λ has huge effect at small scale but becomes hidden k k eff The probability densities forx ˆ andp ˆ to take values x macroscopically. This resolves the “old” cosmological k k k and p are given by the square of their wave functions constant problem of explaining why the large vacuum k 1 energy does not have large observable gravitational ef- ωx2 ω  4 − k hx |0i = e 2 , (78) fect. k π 2 1 pk − 2ω hpk|0i = 1 e . (79) VII. THE EFFECT OF VACUUM STRESS (πω) 4 ENERGY TENSOR FLUCTUATION Note that the vacuum state defined by (77) is still Minkowski vacuum, this will be justified in Sec. VIII A. In the last section the vacuum stress energy tensor fluc- A natural way to simulate the quantum fluctuations of tuation term F is excluded. We have shown that the ˆ φ is letting the operator coefficientsx ˆk andp ˆk become huge gravitational effect of the expectation value of the stochastic constants xk and pk: large vacuum energy can be hidden by small (Planck) 0 scale spacetime fluctuations when λeff takes large nega- φ(t, x) (80) tive values. It addresses the old cosmological constant Z 3 d k  pk  problem but does not explain the observed accelerating = xk cos(ωt − k · x) + sin(ωt − k · x) , (2π)3/2 ω expansion of the Universe. In this section we study the effect of the fluctuation where the probability density distributions of xk and pk term F on the spacetime dynamics and show that it can are given by the square of the wave functions (78) and 10

(79). This treatment is similar to the Wigner-Weyl de- If  = 0, the unperturbed solution to (87) is simply scription of quantum mechanics we used in [6]. x(t) = A cos(ω t + θ), (88) The stress energy tensor Tab is a functional of φ and 0 ∇aφ defined by where A, θ are integration constants which are deter- 1 mined by the initial values x(0), x˙(0). When   ω2 T = ∇ φ∇ φ − g ∇ φ∇cφ + m2φ2
. (81) 0 ab a b 2 ab c is small but nonzero, the parametric resonance would happen if the perturbation frequency γ closes to 2ω0/n, Direct calculation shows that ρ + trT = 2φ˙2 − m2φ2 and where n is a positive integer, and the solution perturbed thus from (67) we obtain that the contribution to F from from (88) becomes unstable. In this case, the amplitude φ is of the oscillation grows exponentially that the perturbed 4πG   unstable solution is asymptotic to F = 2φ˙2 − m2φ2 − C , (82) st 3 x(t) ∼ e A cos (ω0t + θ) , s > 1. (89) ˙2 2 2 where C = h2φ − m φ i is a constant to make sure The strength of the parametric resonance characterized hF i = 0. Note that the expression (82) for F does not by the exponent s decreases as n increases, i.e., as the explicitly depend the metric gab. perturbation frequency γ becomes small compared to the At each spatial point x, F can be regarded as a time oscillator x’s natural frequency ω0. This is easy to un- dependent function Fx(t) given by (82) and (80). For derstand since as n → ∞, γ → 0 so that (87) reduces to convenience, we rewrite the key dynamical equation (63) an ordinary harmonic oscillator with constant frequency here as which has no parametric resonance behavior. 1  Compared to (87), (83) is more complicated in two as- a¨ + 2σ2 − λ0
+ F (t) a = 0. (83) 3 eff x pects: i) the external perturbation term  cos(γt) in (87) is periodic which contains only one frequency γ while the 2 The evolution equation for σ now becomes corresponding term Fx(t) in (83) is not strictly periodic (3) which contains a continuous spectrum of frequencies be- (σ2)· = −2Kσ2 − R σab + 8πGT σab. (84) 2 ab ab tween 0 to 2Λ; ii) the natural frequency term ω0 in (87) 1 2 0
is constant while the corresponding term 3 2σ − λeff It turns out that the case when F is relatively small 2 0 in (83) is not constant due to the varying shear σ whose compared to −λeff is most interesting. In this case, the vacuum stress energy tensor fluctuation serves as a evolution follows (84). small perturbation of the picture of the micro-cyclic “uni- Although there are the above two differences, we ar- verses” we obtained in the last section VI. gue that the dynamical evolution of (83) would exhibit The standard formulation of the cosmological constant similar parametric resonance phenomenon. problem assumes the effective field theory which is valid For simplicity, we first ignore the second difference by studying the following simpler equation in which the only up to some certain high energy cutoff Λ. We adopt 2 the same assumption in this paper and impose the cutoff shear term σ in (83) has been dropped: Λ to the quantum field expansion (75). Then the mag-  λ0  nitude of the fluctuation of F goes as ∼ GΛ4 and F is a¨ + − eff + F (t) a = 0. (90) 3 x relatively small means Similar to (87) that if we set F (t) = 0 in (90), the solu- − λ0 ∼ −λ  Λ2 ≥ GΛ4, assuming Λ ≤ E , (85) x eff B P tion is where EP is the Planck energy. r 0 ! λeff Plugging (80) into (82) one can obtain a complicated a(t, x) = Ax cos − t + θx , (91) expression for Fx(t) which can be written as the following 3 form: where Ax, θx are integration constants which are deter- Z 2Λ mined by the initial values a(0, x), a˙(0, x). Fx(t) = dγ (fx(γ) cos(γt) + gx(γ) sin(γt)) , (86) 0 The occurrence of the parametric resonance does not require a strictly periodic perturbation on the parameter where fx and gx are some integrals of xk and pk over k. 2 p 0 Ω . The natural frequency of (90) is Ω0 = −λeff /3. Fx(t) fluctuates around zero. This fluctuation serves There always exists an integer n such that for any as an external force which changes the parameter Ω2 of 0 n ≥ n0, Fx(t) contains the frequencies 2Ω0/n ∈ (0, 2Λ) the oscillation system. A dynamical system with time- which may excite resonances. So the parametric reso- varying parameters is likely to exhibit parametric reso- nance should always happen and the perturbed solution nance phenomenon. A simplest example of parametric to (90) is asymptotic to resonance is the following harmonic oscillator with peri- r ! odically perturbed frequency: λ0 a(t, x) ∼ eHtA cos − eff t + θ , (92) 2
x 3 x x¨ + ω0 +  cos(γt) x = 0. (87) 11

80 -6.5 λ B=-3 λ B=-3.075 60 λ B=-3.15 λ B=-3.225 -7 λ =-3.3 40 B log(H) log(|a|) 20 -7.5 1/2 log(H)=-14.5(|λ | /Λ)+18.5 0 B -8 0 10000 20000 30000 40000 50000 1.75 1.8 Time λ 1/2 Λ | B| / FIG. 3. Numerical simulation for the dependence of log |a| p on the bare cosmological constant λB . We take the cutoff FIG. 4. Plot of log H over |λB | when the matter fields are Λ = 1. 400 samples are averaged for each line. Planck units one Boson field and one Fermion field. The fitting result shows 18 are used for convenience. The matter fields are one Boson that α ∼ e , β ∼ 14. Planck units are used for convenience. field and one Fermion field. The magnitude of hρ + trT i for The cutoff Λ = 1. both fields are set equal but with opposite sign. It shows that the Hubble expansion rate decreases as −λB increases. √ We use the same numerical method described in [6]. (This low the same steps of Section.VC of [6] with Ω ∼ GΛ2 p numerical simulation actually comes from Chapter 10.3 of the replaced by Ω ∼ −λB/3, we obtain that thesis [16]. The original idea of taking the bare cosmological √ constant to large negative values actually started in [16]. We −λ −β B abandoned the idea there because the problem of large spatial H = αΛe Λ , (94) curvature explained in Chapter 10.5 of [16]. Fortunately, we found later that this is not a problem in the general approach where α, β > 0 are two dimensionless constants whose we used in this paper. It was a problem in [16] because we pre- values depend on the detailed fluctuation property of assumed that the metric took the form of Eq.(10.33), which Fx(t). is not true for the general fluctuating spacetime metric (18) √ The result (94) is easy to understand. Larger −λB we are studying in this paper. In fact, we have shown in Λ Sec.IV of this paper that in our fluctuating spacetime the means smaller and slower fluctuations of the perturbation bare cosmological constant has to take large negative values Fx(t) compared to the oscillations of the system and thus to make the observed macroscopic spatial curvature small.) a smaller√ rate of change H. The extra factor Λ in front −λ −β B of e Λ is because faster fluctuations gives stronger parametric resonance. The fitting result FIG. 4 gives an where H > 0 characterize the strength of the parametric estimation that α ∼ e18, β ∼ 14 if the matter fields are resonance. The straight lines with positive slope in FIG. one Boson field and one Fermion field. 3 of the numerical simulation of (90) show that the para- Now we put the shear term σ2 back to the evolution metric resonance does happen. The exponent H → 0 equation (83). The dynamics of (83) is way more com- as −λB → +∞ since the relative magnitude of the per- 0 plicated than (90). However, the parametric resonance turbation term Fx(t) to −λeff /3 decreases to zero. This should still occur. The root cause of the parametric res- property is also shown in FIG. 3 by the decreases of the onance is that, for certain frequencies of the external slopes of the straight lines as the value of −λB increases. perturbations on the parameter Ω2, the restoring force We can use the same method we used in [6] to es- does more positive work as the oscillator moves toward timate more accurately how H depends on λB and Λ. the equilibrium point than negative work as the oscilla- Notice that the small perturbation Fx(t) is also adia- tor moves away from the equilibrium point. During each batic since the the time scale of variations of Fx(t) is cycle of the oscillation, the energy transferred to the sys- t ∼ 1/Λ, which√ is much smaller than a’s oscillation pe- tem is proportional to the oscillation amplitude. This riod T ∼ 1/ −λB. During each period of oscillation 0 2 λeff of a, the frequency Ω = − 3 + Fx(t) almost does not change so that this is an adiabatic process3. Then fol- scale Λ. As the change in energy is significant, i.e. ∆E ∼ Λ, we have ∆t ∼ 1/Λ. This means Fx(t) would become appreciably different after a time interval of the order 1/Λ. This is easy to un- 3 The time scale of variations of Fx(t) can be obtained from the derstand since the dominant contribution to the stress-enenegy time-energy uncertainty relation tensor comes from field modes of high frequencies close to Λ. This result can also be obtained by calculating the correlation ∆E∆t ∼ 1. (93) functions of the stress energy tensor (see [6] for a direct calcula- The energy scale of the quantum matter fields is just the cutoff tion). 12

−1 leads to the exponential growth of the amplitude. Af- be tuned to an accuracy of 10 or λB only needs to be ter putting the σ2 term back, the oscillation of a is no tuned to an accuracy of 10−2 to satisfy (99). longer sinusoidal and the frequency of the oscillation be- In general, the difference in the order of magnitude comes larger. The exact frequencies which may excite Λ (new) Λ 2 2 between the two terms − 2β log(λeff ) and 2β log(α Λ ) the resonances are no longer the same as (90). But since in (99) is determined by the value of Λ, α and β. Λ can Fx(t) contains a continuous spectrum of frequencies be- take any reasonable value smaller than 1. The values tween 0 to 2Λ, there should always exist new resonance of α and β are determined by the detailed properties of frequencies lie between 0 to 2Λ. For this reason, we argue quantum vacuum fluctuations. Basically, for fixed Λ, the that the parametric resonance still always occur and the difference becomes smaller if α decreases and β increases. perturbed solution to (83) is asymptotic to Because of the exponential suppression, the extreme fine- tuning of the bare cosmological constant λ to match the a(t, x) ∼ eHta (t, x), H > 0, (95) B 0 observation is not needed. where a0(t, x) is the solution to (71) where the vacuum stress energy tensor fluctuation is excluded. Then the observed macroscopic volume of the space would be VIII. DISCUSSIONS Z V (t) = d3|a|3 = e3HtV (0). (96) A. The issue of the definition of vacuum state

Defining the vacuum is actually not trivial in curved So H represents the Hubble expansion rate produced by spacetime. In Minkowski spacetime, the vacuum state the vacuum stress energy tensor fluctuations. This pro- is uniquely defined as the state with lowest possible en- duces an accelerated expanding universe. Moreover, we ergy. However, there is no well defined vacuum state would have in a general curved spacetime. This is already an issue H → 0, as − λ → +∞, (97) in the standard formulation of the cosmological constant B problem, although it is rarely mentioned in the litera- 4 since the relative magnitude of the perturbation term ture . The spacetime we are dealing with in this paper 1 2 0
is sourced by the bare cosmological constant λB and the Fx(t) to the term 3 2σ − λeff decreases as λB in- creases. Therefore, for any cutoff value of Λ, there is matter fields vacuum stress-energy tensor. This space- time is wildly fluctuating like Wheeler’s spacetime foam always some value for λB to match the observed small H. This suggests that the vacuum stress energy tensor that no vacuum state definition in the usual sense is pos- fluctuation serves as the “dark energy” which is acceler- sible. ating the expansion of our Universe. However, we can still define a state which is “effec- Since the basic underlying physical mechanism of the tively” a Minkowski vacuum state below the high en- parametric resonance is the same, the dependence of H ergy cutoff Λ. The spacetime we are interested in is dominated by the bare cosmological constant λ . Its on λB and Λ should also take the form of (94), but with √ B different values of α and β. Then instead of the usual fluctuation happens at the length scale 1/ −λB, which relation (6) between the effective cosmological constant is much smaller than the length scale 1/Λ of the field modes. Then the similar argument we made in [6] also λeff and the bare cosmological constant λB, (94) gives a new relation: applies here that the corrections to the field modes with √ frequencies below Λ would be small. In other words, the −λ (new) 2 2 2 −2β B spacetime should still looks like Minkowski for low fre- λ = 3H = 3α Λ e Λ . (98) eff quency field modes. Long wavelength fields ride over the This relation can be rewritten as Wheeler’s foam seeing only their average properties. This is similar to the behavior of very long wavelength water Λ (new) p Λ waves which do not notice the rapidly fluctuating atomic − log(λ ) = −λ − log(3α2Λ2). (99) 2β eff B 2β soup over which they ride. In this paper we adopt the effective field theory philosophy that the field theory for The numerical simulation shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4 matter is valid up to the cutoff Λ. The long wavelength gives an estimation that α is somewhere between e10 to modes average out the wild fluctuations on the scale of 20 √ e , β is somewhere between 10 to 20. Then if we take 1/ −λB, making them behave like modes in flat space- Λ = 1 (for convenience, we use Planck units here), we time. Therefore, below Λ, we can approximately define have the vacuum state as the lowest energy state as usually done in the ordinary quantum field theory in Minkowski Λ Λ − log(λ(new)) ∼ 10, log(3α2Λ2) ∼ 1. (100) 2β eff 2β

In this case, since the above two terms√ are only different 4 It is mentioned, for example, in the review article [17] by 1 order of magnitude, the term −λB only needs to 13 spacetime. In other words, below the cutoff Λ, the vac- fluctuation arose from the uncertainty principle, our clas- uum state we are using in this paper is approximately sically fluctuating spacetime should, at least to a certain the usual vacuum state defined in Minkowski spacetime. extent, reveal some quantum fluctuation feature of the This justifies the use of the Minkowski vacuum defined future satisfactory quantum theory of gravity. by (77). In fact, this is one of the key points of this paper—the quantum gravity fluctuations at small (Planck) scale are important, it causes a highly inhomogeneous spacetime B. The validity of the classical treatment of the which can hide the large gravitational effect of quantum spacetime evolution vacuum at that scale. Although we do not have a quan- tum theory of gravity to precisely describe it, we may It is usually believed that the Planck length is the scale use classically fluctuating spacetime to approximate it. at which quantum gravitational effects is strong. Thus Note that the standard formulation of the cosmological the classical description of spacetime is supposed to be- constant problem also treats the spacetime as classical. come invalid when one goes to higher than Planck energy It missed the important spacetime fluctuations. In this scale. The reader may have the concern that this would paper we follow the same classical treatment but include invalidate our classical treatment of the spacetime evo- the effect of these fluctuations. The result shows that we lution which is based on the unquantized Einstein equa- may not need to wait until a completely satisfactory the- tions (14). ory of quantum gravity to solve the cosmological constant However, the energy scale in our model does not nec- problem and the solution presented in this paper could essarily reach Planck scale. In fact, it is more likely that provide a hint about what the final quantum gravity the- the energy scale is below Planck. ory looks like. Our result suggests that such a theory may Note that there are two parameters, the matter fields exhibit a similar micro-cyclic “universes” picture. Our classical treatment of the spacetime evolution cutoff Λ and the bare cosmological constant λB in our new relation (98). Depends on the value of the two di- might also become invalid at the singularities a = 0. The mensionless constants α and β, the gravity oscillation existence of the singularity is a common issue of classical √ general relativity, not a particular issue of our model. We scale −λB might need to be larger than Λ for one or two orders of magnitude. The value of the energy scale Λ are going to discuss this issue in the next subsection. up to which the effective field theory is valid is not known. The particle physics experiments so far have only tested C. The issue of the singularities the field theory up to T ev scale. Provided the huge gap between the energy scale of the standard model of par- ticle physics (103GeV ) and the Planck scale (1019GeV ), Probably the biggest concern about this proposal for there is actually large chances for Λ to take values far addressing the cosmological constant problem is the ap- below the Planck energy. pearance of the singularities at a = 0. For example, it is estimated in [18] that an upper limit The existence of singularities is a generic feature of on the domain of validity of the quantum field theory the solution of Einstein field equations under rather gen- description of nature is around 100 T eV (10−14E ). If eral energy conditions (e.g. strong, weak, dominant √ P etc.), which is guaranteed by Penrose-Hawking singular- so, the oscillation scale of the gravity field −λB could −13 −12 ity theorems [19–24]. Our negative cosmological constant be around 10 EP or 10 EP , far below the Planck energy and classical general relativity is expected to be dominated spacetime satisfies the strong energy condi- a valid description of gravity. tion and thus the occurrence of the singularities is in- As far as we know, the energy scale of most field the- evitable. In fact, it has been shown in [25] that all time- ories beyond the standard model is below Planck energy like geodesics in a globally hyperbolic spacetime domi- scale. Probably the one most close to the Planck energy nated by a negative cosmological constant are future and past incomplete5, and no timelike curve has a proper time is the Grand Unified Theory. If Λ is taken√ to be on the p −3 length greater than π −3/λB (see FIG. 2). One can GUT scale which is around 10 EP , then −λB could −1 −2 also show that they are curvature singularities since the be around 10 EP or 10 EP . In this case, our classical abcd treatment of gravity should still be valid. Kretschmann invariant RabcdR is divergent. At the singularities a = 0 the frequency Ω2 = +∞ Even if the quantum field theory description of mat- since the shear scalar σ2 diverges there. This leads to the ters is indeed valid until the Planck scale, i.e., if we let √ divergence of the the “velocity”a ˙ and the “acceleration” Λ = E , then the gravity oscillation scale −λ might P B a¨ at a = 0. Physically, this implies that the oscillator need to be 10E or 100E (If we use the values of α and β P P a would go across its equilibrium point infinitely fast so given by√ the numerical simulation shown in FIG. 3 and FIG. 4, −λB would be around 10EP .). In this case, our classical treatment may not be a precise description of the spacetime evolution. However, since this is not too 5 The anti-de Sitter space is geodesically complete, but it is not far above the Planck energy, and, since one of the most globally hyperbolic. All physically realistic spacetimes should be important features of a quantum system is the quantum globally hyperbolic. 14 that a singular bounce happens within infinitely short of Ashtekar used a similar trick in his method of “new vari- time. The singularities form and then disappear imme- ables” to develop an equivalent Hamiltonian formulation diately. However, mathematically, there is ambiguity to of general relativity [27]. Stoica followed this idea and continue the solution across the singularities. Due to the formulated the “singular general relativity” [28] which divergences ofa ˙ at a = 0, one cannot tell how the solution allows the metric to become degenerate. In this fomula- for a before the crossing over 0 connected to the solution tion, he argues that not tensor but tensor densities are after the crossing. One basic question raised by this is- the physical quanties and the densitized Einstein equa- sue is whether the bounces are “elastic”, i.e., whether tions (101) are actually more fundamental than the usual the magnitude ofa ˙ “right before” and “right after” the Einstein equations [28–36]. crossing of a = 0 equal? Unfortunately, gµν is not smooth at the singularities This ambiguity represents the break down of the clas- in our spacetime since gµν itself and its first two deriva- sical description of gravitation at the singularities and tives may be divergent at a = 0. Because of this, even general relativity “partially” loses its predictability there. the extended equation (101) is not valid at the singular- We use the wording “partially” because the classical Ein- ities. However, this issue may be fixed by operating on p stein equation does not completely lose its predictability the metric density (−g) gµν (of suitable weight −2p) in- p at a = 0, at least follow the classical evolution equation stead of metric gµν in (101). The metric density (−g) gµν (63) one can obtain that a must pass 0 without stopping and its first two derivatives can always be made finite so that a bounce must happen, although one can not for suitable values of p due to the vanishing of g at the determine unambiguously whether the bounce is “elas- singularities. Then if we replace the argument gµν by p tic” or not. In principle, quantum effect of gravity itself (−g) gµν in (101), i.e., if we express Gµν in terms of p would play a dominant role near the singularities so that (−g) gµν instead of gµν , (101) would be valid at the sin- p one need to use quantum gravity to predict what is re- gularities. Then with the requirement that (−g) gµν are ally going on when a approaches the singularities. Un- smooth (or at least their first two derivatives exist) at fortunately, there is no satisfactory quantum theory of the singularities a = 0 for all suitable values of p, the p gravity yet. However, a natural guess from the “energy new variables (−g) gµν can unambiguously (uniquely) conservation” consideration is that the bounces should evolve across the singularities according to the extended be “elastic”, although in general there is no well defined equation (101). We can then obtain the solution for the p energy for gravitational field in general relativity. metric gµν from (−g) gµν . In this sense, one can still In the following we argue that a natural classical pre- predict how gµν evolves beyond the singularities accord- scription to extend the Einstein field equations beyond ing to the extended Einstein equations (101), although the singularities do predict the “elastic” bounces. gµν may still be divergent at the singularities. The di- One essential feature of the singularities happened in vergence of gµν might not as bad as usually thought since our picture is that the determinant g = −a6 of the metric practically one can not measure physical quantities at a becomes 0 when a = 0, i.e., the metric becomes degener- point. Any measurement has to be made in a finite re- ate. The standard formulation of general relativity does gion of√ spacetime and thus there is always an integral not allow the metric to be degenerate because the inverse R d4x −g which may cancel (or at least weaken) the di- metric gab would become singular and the quantities in- vergence at the singularity because of the vanishing of g a volved in Einstein equations like Rbcd, Rab, R would take there. on the form 0/0. A natural way of resolving this kind of For example, we can apply the above prescription of singularities characterized by the the vanishing of g is by singularity resolution to the simple Kasner metric multiplying both sides of the Einstein equations by some power of g: ds2 = −dt2 + t2p1 dx2 + t2p2 dy2 + t2p3 dz2, t > 0, (102)

p p p (−g) Gµν + (−g) λBgµν = (−g) 8πGTµν . (101) with

2 2 2 For suitable values of p, there is no longer any denomina- p1 + p2 + p3 = p1 + p2 + p3 = 1. (103) tor in the above equation (101). This equation is equiva- lent to the original Einstein equation at points away from The Kasner metric for t < 0 takes the same form the singularities and still valid at the singularities if the 0 0 0 2 2 2 p1 2 2 p2 2 2 p3 2 metric components gµν are smooth (or at least their first ds = −dt + (t ) dx + (t ) dy + (t ) dz , t < 0, two derivatives exist) at a = 0. Then there is no problem (104) for gµν to unambiguously (uniquely) evolve across the with singularities according to the extended equation (101). 0 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 2 This idea of resolving a singularity by mulptiplying p1 + p2 + p3 = p1 + p2 + p3 = 1. (105) Einstein equations with some power of the determinant of the metric is not new. Einstein himself had proposed this If we arrange p1, p2, p3 in the order p1 < p2 < p3, their idea with his collaborator Rosen in 1935 (for which they values will lie in the intervals credited this idea to Mayer) [26] in the study of spacetime 1 2 2 − ≤ p ≤ 0, 0 ≤ p ≤ , ≤ p ≤ 1. (106) metric which is called the Einstein-Rosen bridge later. 3 1 2 3 3 3 15

The metric component t2p1 is divergent at t = 0 and all (110). In fact, an exact solution of the Einstein equations the first and second derivatives (t2pi )·,(t2pi )··, i = 1, 2, 3 for a Bianchi-I universe (homogeneous but anisotropic are also divergent at t = 0. So the original Einstein equa- universe with flat spatial curvature) in the presence of tions are invalid at t = 0 and thus cannot predict how a negative cosmological constant has been shown to be the metric (102) for t > 0 evolve across t = 0 to negative Kasner type [37]. values of t. In other words, one cannot tell how the Kas- The exact dynamics of the metric near the singulari- ner index p1, p2, p3 for t > 0 relate to the Kasner index ties in our wildly fluctuating spacetime is of course much 0 0 0 p1, p2, p3 for t < 0 from the original Einstein equations. more complicated than the simple Kasner metric (110). However, since the determinant −g = t2, then the met- According to Wheeler’s insight that “matter doesn’t mat- ric density (−g)pt2pi = t2(p+pi) and their first and second ter” near a singularity, we have, for most type of matter derivatives are all finite at t = 0 if p ≥ −p1 + 1 and thus including the negative cosmological constant, the effect the extended Einstein equations (101) for the new vari- of the matter fields on the dynamics of the geometry p ables (−g) gµν are valid there. becomes negligible near the singularity. And also ac- In particular, for p = −p1 + 1, the three components cording to the BKL conjecture [38], near the singularity of (−g)pt2pi for t > 0 are the evolution of the geometry at different spatial points decouples, we have the dynamics of our spacetime near 2 2(p −p +1) 2(p −p +1) t , t 2 1 , t 3 1 , (107) the singularities should be similar to the BKL singularity,

p 2p0 which is a model of the dynamic evolution of the Universe and the three components of (−g) t i for t < 0 are near the initial singularity, described by an anisotropic, 2(p0 −p +1) 2(p0 −p +1) 2(p0 −p +1) chaotic solutions of the Einstein field equations of grav- t 1 1 , t 2 1 , t 3 1 . (108) itation. The difference between the usually studied ho- At t = 0, the three components of (107) and their first mogeneous BKL model and our fluctuating spacetime is derivatives are all equal to zero, which is the same as the that in our model the spacetime is inhomogeneous that values of the three components of (108) and their first the singularities happen at different times. Also, unlike derivatives. However, the second derivative of the first the usual study that the singularity is supposed to be an component t2 in (107) at t = 0 is equal to 2, while the end of BKL dynamics, in our spacetime the singularity 2(p0 −p +1) is not an end but a bounce. second derivative of the first component t 1 1 in 0 0 0 2(p −p1) So far, we have argued that the classical spacetime evo- (108) is 2(p1 − p1 + 1)(2(p1 − p1) + 1)t 1 , which is either 0 or ∞ if p0 6= p . In order to match them, one lution in this paper can continue beyond the singularities 1 1 p must have if we operate on the metric density (−g) gµν (of suitable weight −2p) instead of on the metric gµν in the extended 0 0 0 p1 = p1, p2 = p2, p3 = p3. (109) Einstein equations (101). The price is that we accept the divergence of gµν at the singularities. This prescrip- Therefore, we have obtained that the metric density tion naturally predicts classical “elastic” bounces at the t2(p+pi), which is valid for all values of t, is a unique solu- singularities. tion to the extended Einstein equations (101) under the p We emphasize here that this way of singularity reso- requirement that the new variables (−g) gµν are smooth lution is just a prescription for trying to keep a classical (or at least first two derivatives match) at the singulari- description of spacetime near the singularities. In princi- ties for all suitable values of p. Then the Kasner metric ple, quantum effects of gravity itself would play a dom- (102) can be extended to negative values of t: inant role near the singularities which would invalidate ds2 = −dt2+(t2)p1 dx2 + (t2)p2 dy2 + (t2)p3 dz2,(110) the classical description of spacetime. We need a quan- tum theory of gravity to predict what is really going on −∞ < t < +∞. near the singularities. This metric describes an “elastic” singular bounce at Although there is still no satisfactory quantum the- t = 0. The function (t2)pi is defined as function com- ory of gravity yet, it is interesting to notice that some position t 7→ t2 7→ (t2)pi , where the exponentiation to existing quantum gravity theory also predicts the sim- 2 the real power pi of the non-negative base t ≥ 0 is de- ilar bounces predicted by the classical evolution equa- fined by extending the usual rational powers to reals by tion (63). In fact, loop quantum gravity has obtained continuity. In this definition, one always has (t2)pi ≥ 0. similar bounce pictures in FLRW, Bianchi, and Gowdy The spacetime evolution in this paper can also be con- models [39, 40]. The difference is that in loop qunatum tinued across the singularities a = 0 by applying this pre- gravity the singularity is avoided since the bounce hap- scription. It is natural that the bounces given by this pre- pens before the singularity forms. That is because in the scription is “elastic” since the smoothness requirement framework of loop quantum gravity the quantum geom- (or at least the first two derivatives continuous) of the etry creates a new repulsive force which is totally neg- p new variables (−g) gµν at the singularities a = 0. ligible at low spacetime curvature but rises very rapidly There are some similarities in the singularity structure in the Planck regime which bounces the contraction back between our fluctuating spacetime dominated by the neg- to expansion. Unlike in our “classical” model, the struc- ative bare cosmological constant and the Kasner metric tures in loop quantum cosmology before and after the 16 quantum bounce can change in general. For example, would be on super-super-Planck scale. However, general quantum gravitational effects can cause Kasner transi- relativity is generally expected to break down at or above tions in Bianchi spacetimes [41, 42]. However, these dif- Planck scale and QFT may break down even earlier. ferences in the details of the bouncing dynamics should The new scenario does not have the above listed short- not alter our main result as long as the (average) bounces comings: are “elastic”. i) The high energy cutoff Λ just labels the energy scale One might also feel strange that the local scale fac- which measures the magnitude of the quantum fluctua- tor a can be negative, which contradicts our impression tions. Since the bare cosmological constant λB is domi- of positive a in standard cosmological models. How- nant, whether or not the usually assumed vacuum equa- ever, this is not a problem since the physical quanties tion of state (4) is violated at small (Planck) scale does are always the non-negative determinant h = a6 ≥ 0 and not matter. The different regularization methods for cal- the positive-(semi)definite spatial metric hab. Gielen and culating the expectation value of the vacuum energy den- Turok described a similar picture which they called “per- sity do not alter the general scenario, although it may al- fect quantum cosmological bounce” in the usual homo- ter the details that the numerical values of the constants geneous FLRW universe [43, 44]. They also showed that α, β in (94) may change. it is natural to extend the scale factor a to negative val- ii) For our new model to work, we only need to ad- 2 4 ues, allowing a large, collapsing universe to evolve across just −λB  Λ ≥ GΛ (assuming Λ ≤ EP ) to make a quantum bounce to an expanding universe. They cir- sure the expectation value hΩ2i  Λ2 that even a small cumvented the big bang singularity by analytically ex- probability for Ω2 < 0 does not matter. tending a to the entire complex plane that the universe iii) For our new result (98), Λ can take any possible evolves from large negative a to large positive a along a value below the Planck energy and the√ oscillation scale contour which avoids a = 0. of the gravity field, which is given by −λB, would not Another issue caused by the singularities is how they be far above the Planck energy scale. More detailed dis- affect the propagation of quantum fields riding on the cussion has been presented in Sec.VIII B. spacetime. It has been argued in Sec.VII and Sec.IXB of [6] by direct calculations for a special toy metric that the singularities do not affect the propagation of low fre- E. Open questions quency field modes. In that toy model, the singular- ities do not cause problems at the observable low en- Here we list some open questions raised by this new ergy regime. This result should be still valid in our gen- scenario which deserve further studies in the future. eral fluctuating spacetime with the singularities—after i) We model both the metric and the matter fields as all, the singularities only appear (and immediately disap- √ classical fluctuating fields. What if we treat both of them pear) at energy scales of −λ , which should not affect B as quantum operators? Can we get the same result? In the low energy physics whose energy scale is far below √ other words, what about quantum gravity? As explained −λ . B in Sec.VIII B, if the cutoff Λ is far below Planck energy, the classical treatment should be a good approximation. If Λ closes to Planck energy, quantum gravity effect might D. Advantages of the new scenario be important. We have argued that one of the most important features of a quantum system is the quantum The old scenario presented in [45] has a couple of short- fluctuation due to the uncertainty principle. When Λ comings: closes to Planck energy, this classical treatment should i) In the old scenario, the high energy cutoff Λ violates at least reveal some quantum fluctuation picture of the the usual Lorentz invariance requirement of the quantum future satisfactory quantum theory of gravity. So can vacuum [45], which leads to the violation of the usually this guide us to the right way to quantize gravity? assumed vacuum equation of state (4)(i.e., hP i = −hρi). ii) What about low energy Einstein equations? Do ii) In the old scenario, we required that the square they decouple from these high energy equations? If not, 2 of the time dependent frequency Ω = 4πG(ρ + are there problems with gravity waves from Ligo, or with P3 i=1 Pi)/3 > 0 (Eq.(42) in [6]). It would be a dis- Planetary motion? aster to this scenario if there is any significant chance iii) Can this scenario be extended to inflation? Is infla- P3 that ρ + i=1 Pi becomes negative [45, 46]. However, tion extra low energy equations, or is inflation also by the P3 in principle, ρ + i=1 Pi receives contribution from all similar mechanism? For example, can the phase transi- fundamental fields. Naive calculations show that Bo- tions in the early universe effectively shift the negative son fields have positive energy density while Fermion bare cosmological constant λB to values comparable to fields have negative energy density [47]. Since we do not the zero point fluctuations that the parametric resonance have the knowledge of all fundamental fields, the sign of becomes strong and thus be able to produce the inflation? P3 ρ + i=1 Pi can not be determined. If so, the advantage of this model is that the inflation iii) In the old scenario, we required taking Λ to super- can be driven by the fluctuations of quantum vacuum Planck scale and the oscillation scale of gravity field of known physical field, without the need to introduce 17 a hypothetical inflaton field with an artificial slow roll Then based on the above two assumptions, the stan- potential. dard formulation obtains that the observed effective cos- 2 4 iv) The singularities are probably the most crucial mological constant λeff = 3H ∼ λB + GΛ . In order to open question, while we have argued that we can push cancel the large gravitational effect characterized by the 4 through them by the prescription described in Sec. term GΛ , the bare cosmological constant λB has to be VIII C which is still in the classical gravity framework, fine-tuned to extreme accuracy to obtain a small λeff . they remain problematic without a satisfactory quantum “Conventional” approaches to tackle this problem are theory of gravity since in principle quantum gravitational either trying to modify quantum mechanics in some way effect should dominant near the singularities. Loop quan- to make vacuum energy density small or trying to modify tum gravity has obtained similar bounce pictures for sim- general relativity in some way to make vacuum energy pler models, what if also apply it to this model? Will we not gravitate. Some approaches are even pleading to the still get elastic bounces so that our final result still hold? anthropic arguments. v) Our picture requires a large negative bare cos- In this paper, we notice that the Assumptions 1 and mological constant. Interestingly, this is also found in 2 are not true at small scales. The large vacuum energy the asymptotic safety program of quantum gravity when density is produced by small scale quantum fluctuations, studying the RG flow of gravity coupled to the matter there is no reason to apply the cosmological scale FLRW fields of the standard model (see, e.g. [48–50]). The rela- metric to the small scale phenomenon. In our “uncon- tion between these results deserve further investigations. ventional” approach, we model the quantum vacuum as a They might be helpful to answer some of the above open classical fluctuating field and uses the general metric (2) questions. to describe the fluctuations. We assumes the following vi) Both our model and the anti-de Sitter space has a properties of the classical field and the spacetime fluctu- negative cosmological constant. If ignore the relatively ations: small perturbation produced by vacuum stress energy Assumption 10: the classical fluctuating field is mod- tensor, this spacetime is called an Einstein manifold with eled by (80); 0 a negative cosmological constant. The difference is that Assumption 2 : the initial data Kij > 0 and Kij < 0 anti-de Sitter space is homogeneous while our model is on the hypersurface Σ0 are equally possible. highly inhomogeneous. Is there any relation between our Then from the Assumption 20 we obtain that the fluc- model and the ADS/CFT correspondence? tuations of the spacetime would produce a large positive contribution to the averaged macroscopic spatial curva- ture of the Universe. In order to cancel this contribution IX. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION to match the observation, the usually defined effective cosmological constant λeff by (6) has to take a large neg- ative value. The spacetime dynamics sourced by this The cosmological constant problem arises from the fol- large negative λeff would be similar to the cyclic model lowing two basic principles of quantum mechanics and of the universe in the sense that at small scales every general relativity: point in space is a “micro-cyclic universe” which is fol- Principle 1: the uncertainty principle which requires lowing an eternal series of oscillations between expansions that quantum fields vacuum has a large energy density and contractions. The turning points a = 0 at which the 4 hρi ∼ Λ ; space switch from contraction to expansion are curvature Principle 2: the equivalence principle which predicts singularities, we assumed a prescription in Sec.VIII C to that the large energy of quantum vacuum must gravitate continue the space time evolution beyond the singulari- to produce large gravitational effect. ties by a natural extension of the Einstein equations at It is well known that classical general relativity and the singularities. Because the phases of the oscillations quantum mechanics is incompatible with each other and of the “micro-cyclic universes” at different spatial points there is not a satisfactory quantum theory of gravity yet are different, the effect of these oscillations cancel and to combine them together. So in order to study the large the large cosmological constant λeff is screened. These gravitational effect produced by the large quantum vac- phase differences are primarily produced by the “active” uum energy, the quantum vacuum is usually modeled as fluctuations of gravity itself. some classical source of gravity so that one can still apply When the “passive” fluctuations of the spacetime in- the classical general relativity. duced by the quantum vacuum stress tensor fluctuation The standard formulation of the cosmological constant are considered and if the bare cosmological constant λB problem models the quantum vacuum as a perfect clas- is dominant over the vacuum stress tensor fluctuation, sical fluid. It assumes the following properties of the the size of each “micro-universe” would increase a tiny classical fluid and the spacetime it rests on: bit at a slowly accelerating rate during each micro-cycle Assumption 1: the energy density of the fluid is con- of the oscillation due to the weak parametric resonance stant; effect produced by the fluctuations of the quantum vac-

Assumption 2: the spacetime are homogeneous and uum stress energy tensor.√ We obtain a new relation new 2 2 −2β −λB /Λ isotropic so that one can use the FLRW metric (9). λeff = 3H ∼ Λ e which shows that the 18 contribution from the vacuum energy density to the ac- This at least resolves the old cosmological constant prob- celerating expansion of the Universe is exponentially sup- lem and suggests that it is the quantum vacuum fluctu- pressed. In this way, the large cosmological constant gen- ations serve as the dark energy which is accelerating the erated at small scales is hidden at observable scale and expansion of our Universe. This mechanism shows that −122 no fine-tuning of λB to the accuracy of 10 is needed. the physics happens at the smallest (Planck) scale may have effects on the largest (cosmological) scale.

[1] Edward Witten. The cosmological constant from the A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, viewpoint of string theory. In DavidB. Cline, editor, 294(1439):511–521, 1966. Sources and Detection of Dark Matter and Dark Energy [21] S. W. Hawking. The occurrence of singularities in cos- in the Universe, pages 27–36. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, mology. ii. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon- 2001. don A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, [2] Steven Weinberg. The cosmological constant problem. 295(1443):490–493, 1966. Rev. Mod. Phys., 61:1–23, Jan 1989. [22] S. W. Hawking. The occurrence of singularities in cos- [3] Edward Kolb and Michael Turner. The Early Universe. mology. iii. causality and singularities. Proceedings of the 1993. Royal Society of London A: Mathematical, Physical and [4] A. D. Dolgov. The Problem of vacuum energy and Engineering Sciences, 300(1461):187–201, 1967. cosmology. In Phase transitions in cosmology. Proceed- [23] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Struc- ings, 4th Cosmology Colloquium, Euroconference, Paris, ture of Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- France, June 4-9, 1997, 1997. matical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2011. [5] Leonard Susskind. The Cosmic Landscape : String The- [24] S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose. The Singularities of grav- ory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. Little, Brown, itational collapse and cosmology. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond., December 2005. A314:529–548, 1970. [6] Qingdi Wang, Zhen Zhu, and William G. Unruh. How [25] F. J. Tipler. Singularities in universes with negative cos- the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates to drive mological constant. Astrophys. J., 209:12–15, October the slow accelerating expansion of the universe. Phys. 1976. Rev. D, 95:103504, May 2017. [26] A. Einstein and N. Rosen. The particle problem in the [7] Samuel S. Cree, Tamara M. Davis, Timothy C. Ralph, general theory of relativity. Phys. Rev., 48:73–77, Jul Qingdi Wang, Zhen Zhu, and William G. Unruh. Can 1935. the fluctuations of the quantum vacuum solve the cos- [27] Abhay Ashtekar. New hamiltonian formulation of general mological constant problem? Phys. Rev. D, 98:063506, relativity. Phys. Rev. D, 36:1587–1602, Sep 1987. Sep 2018. [28] Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica. Singular Semi-Riemannian Ge- [8] Sean M. Carroll. The Cosmological constant. Living Rev. ometry and Singular General Relativity. PhD thesis, Rel., 4:1, 2001. Bucharest, Polytechnic Inst., 2013. [9] S. Carlip. Hiding the cosmological constant. Phys. Rev. [29] O. C. Stoica. On singular semi-riemannian manifolds. Lett., 123:131302, Sep 2019. International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern [10] John A. Wheeler. On the Nature of quantum geometro- Physics, 11(05):1450041, 2014. dynamics. Annals Phys., 2:604–614, 1957. [30] Ovidiu-Cristinel Stoica. Einstein equation at singulari- [11] C.W. Misner, K.S. Thorne, and J.A. Wheeler. Gravita- ties. Central Eur. J. Phys., 12:123–131, 2014. tion. W. H. Freeman, 1973. [31] Ovidiu-Cristinel Stoica. Beyond the Friedmann- [12] B. L. Hu and E. Verdaguer. Stochastic Gravity: Theory Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker Big Bang singularity. Com- and Applications. Living Rev. Rel., 11:3, 2008. mun. Theor. Phys., 58:613–616, 2012. [13] Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. University Of [32] Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica. The Friedmann-Lematre- Chicago Press, 1984. Robertson-Walker Big Bang Singularities are Well Be- [14] Alan Rendall. Partial Differential Equations in General haved. Int. J. Theor. Phys., 55(1):71–80, 2016. Relativity. Oxford University Press, 2008. [33] Ovidiu-Cristinel Stoica. Schwarzschild’s Singularity is [15] Eric Gourgoulhon. 3+1 formalism and bases of numerical Semi-Regularizable. Eur. Phys. J. Plus, 127:83, 2012. relativity. arXiv, gr-qc/0703035, 2007. [34] Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica. The Geometry of Black Hole [16] Qingdi Wang. Gravity of quantum vacuum and the cos- singularities. Adv. High Energy Phys., 2014:907518, 2014. mological constant problem. PhD thesis, University of [35] Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica. The geometry of singularities British Columbia, 2018. and the black hole information paradox. In Proceedings, [17] Svend E. Rugh and Henrik Zinkernagel. The quantum 7th International Workshop : Spacetime - Matter - Quan- vacuum and the cosmological constant problem, 2001. tum Mechanics. (DICE2014): Castiglioncello, Tuscany, [18] J. M. Carmona and J. L. Cort´es.Infrared and ultraviolet Italy, September 15-19, 2014, 2015. cutoffs of quantum field theory. Phys. Rev. D, 65:025006, [36] Ovidiu Cristinel Stoica. Causal Structure and Spacetime Dec 2001. Singularities. 2015. [19] Roger Penrose. Gravitational collapse and space-time [37] Alexander Yu. Kamenshchik and Chiara M. F. Min- singularities. Phys. Rev. Lett., 14:57–59, Jan 1965. garelli. A Generalized Heckmann-Schucking cosmologi- [20] S. W. Hawking. The occurrence of singularities in cos- cal solution in the presence of a negative cosmological mology. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London constant. Phys. Lett., B693:213–217, 2010. 19

[38] V. A. Belinsky, I. M. Khalatnikov, and E. M. Lifshitz. gravitates to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the Oscillatory approach to a singular point in the relativistic universe”. Phys. Rev. D, 97:068301, Mar 2018. cosmology. Adv. Phys., 19:525–573, 1970. [46] Qingdi Wang and William G. Unruh. Reply to “comment [39] Abhay Ashtekar. Loop Quantum Cosmology: An on ‘how the huge energy of quantum vacuum gravitates Overview. Gen. Rel. Grav., 41:707–741, 2009. to drive the slow accelerating expansion of the universe”’. [40] Ivan Agullo and Parampreet Singh. Loop Quantum Cos- Phys. Rev. D, 97:068302, Mar 2018. mology. In Abhay Ashtekar and Jorge Pullin, editors, [47] Jerome Martin. Everything You Always Wanted To Loop Quantum Gravity: The First 30 Years, pages 183– Know About The Cosmological Constant Problem (But 240. WSP, 2017. Were Afraid To Ask). Comptes Rendus Physique, 13:566– [41] Brajesh Gupt and Parampreet Singh. Quantum gravi- 665, 2012. tational kasner transitions in bianchi-i spacetime. Phys. [48] Jorn Biemans, Alessia Platania, and Frank Saueressig. Rev. D, 86:024034, Jul 2012. Renormalization group fixed points of foliated gravity- [42] Edward Wilson-Ewing. The loop quantum cosmology matter systems. JHEP, 05:093, 2017. bounce as a kasner transition. Classical and Quantum [49] Alfio Bonanno, S. J. Gabriele Gionti, and Alessia Gravity, 35(6):065005, feb 2018. Platania. Bouncing and emergent cosmologies from [43] Steffen Gielen and Neil Turok. Quantum propaga- ArnowittDeserMisner RG flows. Class. Quant. Grav., tion across cosmological singularities. Phys. Rev. D, 35(6):065004, 2018. 95:103510, May 2017. [50] Alfio Bonanno, Alessia Platania, and Frank Saueressig. [44] Steffen Gielen and Neil Turok. Perfect quantum cosmo- Cosmological bounds on the field content of asymptoti- logical bounce. Phys. Rev. Lett., 117:021301, Jul 2016. cally safe gravitymatter models. Phys. Lett., B784:229– [45] Francisco D. Mazzitelli and Leonardo G. Trombetta. 236, 2018. Comment on “how the huge energy of quantum vacuum