arXiv:1807.01381v2 [gr-qc] 21 Jul 2018 hoeia hsc ru,TeBakt aoaoy Imper Laboratory, Blackett The Group, Theoretical ∗ [email protected] prtr.Te”oaasae esanwitrrtto saf a bet as relation interpretation uncertainty new an imply a results gets These state” functions. ”Kodama The wi time operators. Chern-Simons time. and Chern-Simons has constant the cosmological latter inverse gravity: The the quantum for Chern- slicing. variable the spatial time to a a conjugate on be connection to Ashtekar out the turns and dynamical becomes ie h osqecso hc ilb icse elsewhere discussed be will which of consequences the time; eateto hsc,BonUiest,Poiec,R,0 RI, Providence, University, Brown Physics, of Department 1Crln tetNrh aelo nai 2 Y,Canada 2Y5, N2J Ontario Waterloo, North, Street Caroline 31 epeeta xeso fgnrlrltvt nwihteco the which in relativity general of extension an present We rneCnotR. odn W B,Uie Kingdom United 2BZ, SW7 London, Rd., Consort Prince h unu omlgclconstant cosmological quantum The tpo lxne,Ja auioadLeSmolin Lee and Magueijo Joao Alexander, Stephon eiee nttt o hoeia Physics, Theoretical for Institute Perimeter uy2,2018 24, July Abstract 1 ween lte eoeconjugate become then ll . enpooe n[]as [1] in proposed been nteqatmtheory quantum the In Λ mlgclconstant smological iosivratof invariant Simons ml ftransition of amily n Chern-Simons and a College, ial ∗ 2906 Contents

1 Introduction 2

2 A Plebanski formulation for our poposal 5

3 The underlying duality 6

4 Three cases for the realization of the theory 7

5 The basis for a Hamiltonian treatment 9

6 Towards a quantum theory 10

7 Outlook 11

1 Introduction

The long standing problem comes in many guises. Before the ob- servation of cosmic acceleration, the search had been to seek a theory where all contribu- tions to the cosmological constant summed up to zero. If the data on acceleration contin- ues to be consistent with a plain cosmological constant, rather than a more general form of dark energy, then the new cosmological constant problem becomes a question of ex- treme fine tuning. In this work we take an agnostic position on this matter and are instead motivated by insights from non-perturbative quantum gravity. In quantum mechanics, while perturbation theory is a powerful tool in unveiling nu- merous physical observables, it can often times obscure or be blind to important non- perturbative information. For example, quantum tunnelling is a non-perturbative pro- cess and any perturbative expansion in the vicinity of the tunnelling barrier would be blind to tunnelling. It is in this context we would like to address the issue of both the IR and UV versions of the cosmological constant problems1. In both cases, the evaluation of the vacuum energy arises from choosing a classical space time background and calculat- ing the relevant perturbative vacuum diagrams, which are divergent and, after imposing regurlarization, deemed to be highly fine tuned. Given the difficulty of the problem, perhaps a new approach is needed. We explore the idea that the cosmological constant is a dynamical variable, not in the sense of a dy- namical field, as in quintessence models, but as a degree of freedom for the entire spatial or spacetime manifold. Even though similar ideas have been explored before[2, 4, 5], the novelty of this paper is that it examines the issue from the unique vantage point of the Ashtekar variables[6] and its associated quantization[7]. In this opening article we focus

1We will not address the issue of phase transitions in this work, and how it might impart on the problem.

2 on the classical formulation of the theory. This will give us guidance for turning the cos- mological constant into an operator in the quantum theory, which we develop in later papers in this series. In this work it is convenient to formulate by gauging the complex- ified Lorentz group, SL(2, C)C on a four dimensional manifold M. The space-time con- ab ba nection A = −A is a one form, valued in sl(2, C)C the Lie algebra of SL(2, C)C. This Lie algebra is represented by complex antisymmetric, 4 × 4 matrices, M ab = −M ba, where a, b, c = 0, 1, 2, 3 are internal Lorentz indices. The resulting gravitational dynamics is de- termined by a connection Aab, a two form Σab, valued in the Lie algebra of SL(2, C) and a scalar field which provides a map Ψ: sl(2, C)C → sl(2, C)C, which is written as Ψabcd with the following symmetries and constraints,

abcd Ψabcd =Ψcdab = −Ψbacd, ε Ψabcd =0 (1)

It is then convenient to change to two component spinor indices where A, B =0, 1 are left handed spinor indices while A′, B′ = 0′, 1′ are right handed spinor indices. The connec- tion then decomposes into

′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Aab = AAA BB = εABAA B + AABεA B (2)

and the two form Σab similarly decompose. Very importantly, the curvature two form decomposes the same way

′ ′ ′ ′ ′ ′ Rab = RAA BB = εABRA B + RABεA B (3)

where AB AB AC B R = dA + A ∧ AC (4) is the left handed part of the curvature tensor2 The scalar fields Ψabcd decompose into pure spin two fields represented by ΨABCD and ΨA′B′C′D′ , both totally symmetric, and mixed components ΨABA′B′ on symmetric pairs of indices. Thus, ΨABCD =Ψ(ABCD) (5) and the same for primed indices represents the spin two field. In our work we formulate an extension of general relativity in which the cosmological constant, Λ, varies3, and is determined by the solution of an equation of motion. The 1 theory has contributions proportional to both Λ and Λ so the process that determines its value is non-perturbative in Λ. The term in Λ is of course just the spacetime volume:

V 1 Λ AB S = − Σ ∧ ΣAB, (6) 8πG M 6 Z 2In much of the literature on LQG, RAB is denoted F AB. 3Prior works in which Λ varies have included [8, 2, 28, 29, 5].

3 AB A′A B B where Σ = e ∧ eA′ is the self-dual two form of the spacetime metric, eA′ . We propose 1 AB a novel coupling of Λ to the topological invariant M R ∧ RAB, where RAB is the left handed part of the curvature tensor. In the Euclidean theory which, for simplicity, we R will be studying in this paper, this reads

new 1 3 AB S = − R ∧ RAB. (7) 8πG M 2Λ Z This is motivated by a key property of deSitter spacetime, which is that it is a self-dual solution, in the sense that Λ R = Σ . (8) AB 3 AB Thus, a formal duality transformation that has deSitter spacetime as a fixed point, must have symmetry: Λ 3 RAB → ΣAB ΣAB → RAB (9) 3 Λ and therefore it must takes the usual cosmological constant term, (6), to its dual, which is Snew, given by Eq. (7). Right at the start we find an interesting quantum implication. A reflection of this duality is that the solution to the Hamilton-Jacobi equation that corresponds to deSitter spacetime is[12] 3 SHJ = Y (A) (10) 2Λ CS ZΣ where YCS(A) is the Chern-Simons invariant of the Ashtekar connection. This is of course closely related to Snew, as we will discuss below. It leads to to a semiclassical state,

ı HJ ~ S ΨK(A)= e (11)

which is called the Kodama state[9]. Remarkably in some regularizations and ordering prescriptions this is an exact solution to all the constraints of quantum gravity[12]. There have, however, been issues concerning the physical adequacy and interpretation of the Kodama state[15]. Below we propose a new interpretation for this state, stemming from our proposal. The form of the new term (7), and particularly that it is CP odd, suggests an anology 3 between Λ and the theta angle in QCD[10]. Relating the cosmological constant problem to the theta vacuum was considered in the works of [11, 13, 14]. This further suggests treating Λ as a dynamical degree of freedom. We explore three versions of this idea, in which Λ is chosen to be a dynamical field, or a function of time in a preferred 3+1 slicing, or a single variable for all spacetime4. We discover in each case that the Λ equation of motion determines its value. 4As in [2].

4 Finally, in one case for the realization of this theory, we show how the Hamiltonian formalism might be set up and lead to the canonical quantization of the theory. Even ignoring details of the dynamics at the classical level, we can see that a quantum uncer- tainty principle would always be in action, rendering Lambda and Chern-Simons time[1], complementary variables. This may possibly leads to deep implications for quantum cos- mology and quantum gravity, which we outline in the concluding Section, and take up again elsewhere. Before beginning, we note that the idea that the cosmological constant is conjugate to a measure of time has appeared before, in the context of unimodular gravity[28, 29]. There the conjugate measure of time is four volume to the past of a three slice.

2 A Plebanski formulation for our poposal

We work first in the Euclidean case. We fix a topology M = I × Σ, where I is the interval and we take Σ compact. We start with an action for general relativity coupled to N chiral fermion fields, all expressed in terms5 of Ashtekar variables[18, 19],

1 1 abcd + + abcd c d 3 AB S = −P+ ea ∧ eb ∧ Rcd(A )+2Λǫ ea ∧ eb ∧ e ∧ e + R ∧ RAB ~ M 8πG~ 2Λ Z ′  ¯ ′ A B a +ΣN ΨA σa e ∧ (DΨ)B, (12)

but with the addition of a new, third term, which will suffice to make Λ dynamical, as we shall presently see. We divide the action by the Planck’s constant for reasons to become apparent below. We then rewrite this action, with its new term, in the Plebanski formulation[20, 21, 16]:

1 1 Λ 1 SPleb = ΣAB ∧ R − ΣAB ∧ Σ − Φ ΣAB ∧ ΣCD ~ 8πG~ AB 6 AB 2 ABCD ZM  3 − RAB ∧ R + Lmatter (13) 2Λ AB  The new term can be rewritten as:

CS 1 3 AB 1 3 S = − R ∧ RAB = − dYCS (14) 16πG~ M Λ 16πG~ M Λ Z Z 1 3 1 3 = − Y + Y 8πG~ 2Λ CS 8πG~ 2Λ CS ZΣfinal ZΣinitial 1 3 + d( )YCS (15) 16πG~ M Λ Z 5 abcd Where P+ is the projection operator onto self-dual two forms.

5 We note that if we exponentiate this action (divided by ~), the first and second terms gives a generalization of the Kodama state on the initial and final slice. The last term can be written as: 3 Λ˙ SCS = dt Y (16) 16π~G Λ2 CS Z ZΣ and vanishes if Lambda is forced to be a constant. The field equations for our theory, in the absence of matter, are: δS 0= → Σ(AB ∧ ΣCD) =0 (17) δΦABCD δS Λ CD 0= → RAB = ΣAB + ΦABCDΣ (18) δΣAB 3 δS 0= → D ∧ ΣAB ≡ SAB (19) δAAB with 3 3 SAB = d( ) ∧ RAB = − dΛ ∧ RAB (20) 2Λ 2Λ2 ′ The solution to (17) is that there exists a frame field eAA such that,

AB A′A B Σ = e ∧ eA′ (21)

′ is the self-dual two form of the metric made from eAA . We also note that if

′ ′ DeBA = T BA (22) is the torsion, then AB (A B)A′ (A B)A′ S =2e A′ ∧De =2e A′ ∧ T (23) A new feature is then a contribution to the torsion (20) related to the derivative of the cosmological constant.

3 The underlying duality

We can see that the terms that involve Λ:

Λ −1 Λ AB 3 AB S = ΣAB ∧ Σ + RAB ∧ R (24) 16π~G M 3 Λ Z   have an interesting structure: they have a formal duality symmetry under:

Λ 3 RAB → ΣAB ΣAB → RAB. (25) 3 Λ

6 The self-dual solutions, including deSitter spacetime, are the self-dual points:

Λ RAB = ΣAB, Φ =0, (26) 3 ABCD

where ΦABCD is a Lagrange multiplier. We say this symmetry is formal because on shell ΣAB satisfies (17), which is typically not satisfied by RAB. Thus, we can extend the theory to one which has (25) as an exact symmetry:

1 1 Λ 1 3 3 SPleb = ΣAB ∧ R − ΣAB ∧ Σ − Φ (ΣAB + RAB) ∧ (ΣCD + RCD) ~ 8πG~ AB 6 AB 2 ABCD Λ Λ ZM  3 − RAB ∧ R + Lmatter. (27) 2Λ AB  Instead of (21) this says that there is a frame field such that

A′A B AB 3 AB e ∧ e ′ = Σ + R . (28) A Λ

′ When we write the action and field equations in terms of this new eAA we find this yields again an action for the Einstein equations.

4 Three cases for the realization of the theory

The duality (25) results in the determination of Λ as a function of the other fields. To see this we study the field equations for varying Λ. There are three cases, depending on what we choose Λ to be a function of.

• Case I: Λ(xµ) is a function of space and time. Varying by Λ(xµ) we find an equation for Λ(xµ):

µ AB Λ(x ) RAB ∧ R = AB (29) 3 s ΣAB ∧ Σ

Plugging this back into the action, we find

Λ −1 AB AB S = RAB ∧ R ΣAB ∧ Σ (30) 8π~G M Z p p This gives an interesting set of equations, the question is whether they are consis- tent. Further study of this case is left to a future publication.

7 • Case II: Λ is a function of time on some preferred 3+1 slicing. We fix an explicit slicing such as constant mean curvature slicing. This gives a time coordinate t. We also define Chern-Simons time by an integral over this slicing, leading to τCS(t). We fix Λ to be a function of the slicing. Varying by Λ(t) we find an equation for Λ(t):

R ∧ RAB Λ(t) Σt AB = AB (31) 3 ΣAB ∧ Σ sRΣt Plugging this back into the action, we findR

−1 SΛ = dt R ∧ RAB Σ ∧ ΣAB (32) 8π~G AB AB Z sZΣt sZΣt This is similar to the theory described in [5], only rather than being conjugate to Newton’s constant, G, it appears the cosmological constant is conjugate to the Chern- Simons time τCS in the preferred slicing. The equation of motion (18) becomes non-local

AB RAB ∧ R CD Σt RAB = +ΦABCDΣ + AB ΣAB (33) ΣAB ∧ Σ sRΣt R This theory is also under investigation. We can check the homogeneous solutions, with6

AB AB R = f(t)Σ , φABCD =0 (34) which yields Λ(t) f = (35) 3 and the torsion (20) It is an important open question whether there are non-trivial solutions where Λ(t) varies, with matter or non-zero Weyl tensor, which are not equivalent to deSitter spacetime. • Case III: Λ is one variable over all of spacetime[2]. Varying by Λ we find an equation for Λ:

AB Λ M RAB ∧ R = AB (36) 3 sRM ΣAB ∧ Σ 6Note that the covariant curl of (18) vanishes becauseR the torsion is (20).

8 Plugging this back into the action, we find

Λ −1 AB AB S = RAB ∧ R ΣAB ∧ Σ (37) 8π~G M M sZ sZ

This is a version of the Kalapor-Padilla theory[2]

We can write out all the components of RAB as

CD A′B′ RAB =ΨABCDΣ + RΣAB + ΦAA′BB′ Σ¯ (38) where ΦAA′BB′ and R are, respectively, the trace-free part of the Ricci tensor and its trace. Then, the Poyntriagin density is

AB 4 2 ABCD AA′BB′ R ∧ RAB = 40ıe R +Ψ ΨABCD − Φ ΦAA′BB′ . (39)   It is interesting to note that in all cases the cosmological constant is proportional to the square root Pontryagin density. It was shown that in metric variables the Pontryagin density vanishes in most cosmological space-times. However in approximate de-Sitter spacetimes, while the background Pontryagin density is zero, backreaceted chiral grav- itational waves are sourced by a dynamical field that is coupled to the density and this will yield a non-vanishing Pontryagin density[23, 24]. It is interesting to expect that such a mechanism could generate a small cosmological constant today and we leave this for a future work [25]. For the remainder of this paper we study Case II.

5 The basis for a Hamiltonian treatment

Let us now apply a 3+1 decomposition to the action, which yields:

1 3 Λ˙ S = dt (EaiA˙ −NH−N aD − µ Gi)+ Y (A) . (40) 8πG ai a i 16π~G Λ2 CS Z "ZΣ ZΣ # As explained above, we assume that Λ is a function of time, t, alone. Then, we have, as usual, the canonical brackets:

i b b i 3 {Aa(x), Ek(y)} =8πGδaδkδ (˜y, x). (41)

In addition Λ has a momentum P such that,

{Λ,P } =1 (42)

9 and there is a new primary constraint

3 1 W = P − Y (A)=0. (43) 16πG Λ2 CS ZΣ We add W to the Hamiltonian with a new lagrange multiplier, φ.

a i H = (N H + N Da + µiG )+ φW. (44) ZΣ In a future paper we will study further the algebra and other properties of this system of constraints. For the purpose of this paper it is sufficient to note that Lambda, or a function thereof, appears to be conjugate to a function of the Chern-Simons time[1] once the new primary constraint is taken into account. This suggests at once a quantum theory containing a Heisenberg uncertainty principle involve Lambda and CS time, something we start to explore here.

6 Towards a quantum theory

Given the classical canonical structures unveiled in Section 5 we can now lay down the basis of the quantum theory, resulting in a new interpretation for the Kodama state. Com- bining (42) and (43) we can infer the Poisson bracket:

16πGΛ2 {Λ, Y (A)} = . (45) CS 3 ZΣ Obtaining this classical structure was the ultimate goal of this first paper. It suggests that

in a quantum theory we can elevate Λ and τCS = Σ YCS(A) to operators with commuta- tion relations, 16π~RGΛˆ 2 [Λˆ, τˆ ]= ı (46) CS 3 We note that the commutator of Λ is proportional to Λ2, so the larger Λ is in Planck units the less classical it is. Specifically, using purely kinematical arguments, we can derive an uncertainty principle of the form:

4π~G ∆Λ∆τ ≥ hΛˆi2. (47) CS 3 If the expectation of Lambda is large in Planck units, then Lambda and CS time are com- plementary or incompatible variables. If it is not, as seems to be the case in the “current” Universe, they can be treated as classical variables. In our theory, the onset of classicality in cosmology is therefore related to the observed smallness of Lambda.

10 Note that since [q,p] = i implies [f(q),p] = if ′(q), we can re-express the commutator (46) in the more canonical form:

1ˆ 16π~G , τˆCS = −ı . (48) "Λ # 3

ˆ1 It is then natural to consider representations that diagonalize either Λ or τˆCS, i.e. one of the two complementary variables. In the CS time representation we have:

τˆCS Ψ(τCS) = τCS Ψ(τCS) (49) 1 4π~G δ Ψ(τCS) = −i Ψ(τCS). (50) Λ 3 δτCS b ˆ1 The Kodama state then appears as an eigenstate of Λ in the CS time basis:

1 ⋆ −ı 3 1 τ −ı 3 1 Y hτ | i =Ψ = e 2ΛG~ 8π CS = e 2ΛG~ 8π RΣ CS . (51) CS Λ CS More generally, the Kodama state can be seen as a transition amplitude between eigen- ˆ1 states of τˆCS and those of Λ :

1 ı 3 1 τ ı 3 1 Y h |τ i =Ψ = e 2ΛG~ 8π CS = e 2ΛG~ 8π RΣ CS . (52) Λ CS CS Within a variable Lambda theory the Kodama state therefore receives a new interpreta- tion as a transition amplitude. We further note that it satisfies a new operator self-dual equation with a quantum Λ operator:

ˆa abc i ˆ −1 Ei − 3ǫ RbcΛ ΨCS =0. (53)   7 Outlook

In this paper we have introduced the term Snew, given by Eq. (7), aiming at introducing a variable or dynamical Λ, and we have just begun a study of the implications for quantum gravity and cosmology. At the level of the classical theory, we have left open important questions. To begin with we will want to extend these results to the Lorentzian theory, in which case the Chern-Simons time becomes the imaginary part of the Chern-Simons invariant of the Ashtekar connection[1]. In each of the three cases we have considered in Section 4 we need to establish whether or not the field equations force Λ to be constant. If the field equations allow, we will want to study classical solutions where Λ varies classically.

11 We note that matter couplings may play a key role, as they may introduce terms in the torsion that compensate those due to derivatives of Λ, given by eq. (20). One reason to expect this will be noted below. But even if Λ is constrained to be constant at the classical level, there may be allowed transitions in the quantum theory in which the value of Λ changes. These would be a new kind of tunnelling, which may be important in the early universe. Naively, the amplitude for such a transition would be proportional to

ı Λ A = e ~ S . (54)

A quantum uncertainty principle between Λ and a measure of time could also have deep cosmological consequences. These will be the subject of separate papers[27]. Further novelties in the the quantum theory would result from a possible chiral grav- itational anomaly. Let us write the quantum partition function as

ı Z = DeDADΛDΨDΨ¯ e ~ S. (55) Z We conjecture that under the integral DΨDΨ¯ for a set of chiral fermions, there will be a chiral anomaly, T rF ∧ F = dJ (56) d where J is the dual of the chiral current, Jabc = ǫabcdJ˜ , where

a A′Ca J˜ = Ψ¯ A′ e ΨC (57)

Note that in ordinary, perturbative quantum gravity, there is a chiral anomaly of the form of (57) so it is natural to conjecture that the anomaly appears here as well. On the basis of this conjecture, we can write the action as

1 abcd + + abcd c d A′B a S = (−ǫ e ∧ e ∧ R (A )+2Λǫ e ∧ e ∧ e ∧ e ) + Σ Ψ¯ ′ σ e ∧ (DΨ) 8πG a b cd a b N A a B ZM   3 1 + dJ (58) 16πG~ M Λ Z Therefore, in our theory, we can write the CS phase as:

3 1 3 1 3 1 SCS dJ d J ds ˙ J = = − 2 Λ =+ 2 Λ (59) 16πG~ M Λ 16πG~ M Λ 16πG~ Λ Z Z Z ZΣ We then have a torsion added to the connection

CS a δS 1 i ∗a 1 i ∗a Ti = i =(d( ) ∧ R ) = ((d( ) ∧ J ) (60) δAa Λ Λ

12 where Ψ a δS 1 A′Ba C ˜ ¯ ′ Ji = i = ΨA e σiBΨC (61) δAa(x) 4π This modifies the curvature tensor and the Einstein Equation. These aspects of the quan- tum theory will be explored in companion papers. To conclude, we have laid down the basis for a new theory of a “quantum cosmo- logical constant” that could address the nagging problems Λ leads to in cosmology and quantum gravity. The glimpses obtained already shed new light on outstanding issues, such as how to interpret the Kodama state in Quantum Gravity. Finally, as we will ar- gue elsewhere, the quantum theory also hints at how a non-perturbative approach might resolve the problem of the smallness of Λ in our Universe.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to Robert Brandenberger, Chris Hull, Evan McDonough, Laurent Freidel, Marc Henneaux, David Jennings, Sumati Surya, Yigit Yarig, Francesca Vidotto and Wolf- gang Wieland for discussions and correspondence and Robert Sims for discussions and for comments on the manuscript. This research was supported in part by Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics. Re- search at Perimeter Institute is supported by the Government of Canada through Industry Canada and by the Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research and Innovation. This research was also partly supported by grants from NSERC and FQXi. LS is especially thankful to the John Templeton Foundation for their generous support of this project. The work of JM was supported by a Consolidated STFC grant.

References

[1] L. Smolin and C. Soo, The Chern-Simons Invariant as the Natural Time Variable for Classical and Quantum Cosmology, Nucl. Phys. B449 (1995) 289, gr-qc/9405015.

[2] Nemanja Kaloper, Antonio Padilla, Sequestering the Standard Model Vacuum Energy, arXiv:1309.6562, Phys.Rev.Lett. 112 (2014) 091304; Vacuum Energy Sequestering: The Framework and Its Cosmological Consequences, arXiv:1406.0711,Phys. Rev. D 90, 084023 (2014).

[3] A. Buchalter, On the time variation of c, G, and h and the dynamics of the cosmic expansion, arXiv:astro-ph/0403202.

[4] Joan Sola, Adria Gomez-Valent, Javier de Cruz Perez, Hints of dynamical vacuum en- ergy in the expanding Universe, arXiv:1506.05793.

13 [5] Lee Smolin, Dynamics of the cosmological and Newton’s constant, arXiv:1507.01229. Classical and Quantum Gravity, Volume 33, Number 2, http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/33/2/025011.

[6] Abhay Ashtekar, New variables for classical and quantum gravity,? Phys. Rev. Lett. 57(18), 2244-2247 (1986).

[7] Francesca Vidotto and Carlo Rovelli, Covariant , CUP.

[8] H.Terazawa, Phys.Lett.B101, 43(1981).

[9] H. Kodama, Holomorphic Wave Function Of The Universe, Phys. Rev. D42 (1990) 2548.

[10] ABHAY ASHTEKAR, A.P. BALACHANDRAN and S. JO, THE CP PROBLEM IN QUANTUM GRAVITY, International Journal of Modern Physics AVol. 04, https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X89000649

[11] S. Alexander, Phys. Lett. B 629, 53 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2005.09.026 [hep-th/0503146].

[12] L. Smolin, Quantum gravity with a positive cosmological constant, hep-th/0209079.

[13] S. H. S. Alexander and G. Calcagni, Found. Phys. 38, 1148 (2008) doi:10.1007/s10701- 008-9257-6 [arXiv:0807.0225 [hep-th]].

[14] S. H. S. Alexander and G. Calcagni, Phys. Lett. B 672, 386 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2009.01.046 [arXiv:0806.4382 [hep-th]].

[15] E. Witten, “A note on the Chern-Simons and Kodama wavefunctions,” arXiv:gr-qc/0306083.

[16] S. Alexander, A. Marciano and L. Smolin, Phys. Rev. D 89, no. 6, 065017 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.065017 [arXiv:1212.5246 [hep-th]].

[17] L. N. Chang and C. Soo, Ashtekar’s variables and the topological phase of quantum gravity, Proceedings of the XXth. Conference on Differential Geometric Methods in Physics, (Baruch College, New York, 1991), edited by S. Catto and A. Rocha (World Scientific, 1992); Phys. Rev. D46 (1992) 4257; C. Soo and L. N. Chang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D3 (1994) 529.

[18] J. Samuel, Pramana-J Phys. 28 (1987) L429.

[19] T. Jacobson and L. Smolin, Phys. Lett. B 196 (1987) 39; Class. and Quant. Grav. 5 (1988) 583.

[20] J.F. Plebanski. On the separation of einsteinian substructures. J. Math. Phys., 18:2511, 1977.

14 [21] R. Capovilla, J. Dell and T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 21, 2325(1989); Class. Quant. Grav. 8, 59(1991); R. Capovilla, J. Dell, T. Jacobson and L. Mason, Class. and Quant. Grav. 8, 41(1991).

[22] S. Alexander, J. Malecki and L. Smolin, “Quantum gravity and inflation,” arXiv:hep-th/0309045.

[23] S. H. S. Alexander, M. E. Peskin and M. M. Sheikh-Jabbari, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 081301 (2006) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.081301 [hep-th/0403069].

[24] S. Alexander and N. Yunes, Phys. Rept. 480, 1 (2009) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2009.07.002 [arXiv:0907.2562 [hep-th]].

[25] S.Alexander and L. Jenks “Chiral Gravitational Waves and the Cosmologcal Con- stant,” To Appear

[26] Chopin Soo, “Wave function of the universe and Chern-Simons perturbation the- ory,” Class. Quant. Grav. 19, 1051 (2002) [arXiv:gr-qc/0109046].

[27] J. Magueijo and L. Smolin, A universe that doesn’t know the time, arXiv:1807.01520; S. Alexander, J. Magueijo and L. Smolin , Theta vacua and the quantum cosmological constant. , preprint in preparation.

[28] M. Henneaux, C. Teitelboim, The Cosmological Constant and General Covariance, Phys.Lett. B222 (1989) 195-199.

[29] R. D. Sorkin, On the Role of Time in the Sum Over Histories Framework for Gravity, Int. J. Theor. Phys. 33, 523 (1994). doi:10.1007/BF00670514; M. Ahmed, S. Dodel- son, P. B. Greene and R. Sorkin, Everpresent lambda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 103523 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.69.103523 [astro-ph/0209274].

15