Why We Do Not Need Dark Energy to Explain Cosmological Acceleration

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has argued that without explaining the dark energy one can proof the late time accelerating of the universe. Since in classical theory there are some uncertainties for this problem because the value of the cosmological constant arbitrary. Therefore, the author's argument is based on quantum theory where there are no uncertainties in connection with the  de Sitter algebra, the Poincare algebra, the radius of de Sitter space, Galilean algebra. I am someway agree with the arguments though not fully. But it can be publishable, which might be provide another direction to the late time cosmic phenomena research. I recommend for a minor revisions, in particular in the conclusion. The author needs to provide a concrete conclusion that contains a  proper sequent of the arguments.

Author Response

I am grateful to Reviewer 1 for his/her positive assessment of my paper and recommendation to publish it. Following Reviewer 1's recommendation, I have revised the final section. I hope it now contains a proper sequence of arguments as Reviewer 1 recommends. Reviewer 1 writes: “I am someway agree with the arguments though not fully.” He/she does not explicitly say which arguments he/she disagrees with, and I would be interested to know about these arguments. If Reviewer 1 thinks that it is inappropriate to discuss these arguments now, I would be grateful if he/she would agree to discuss them in our private correspondence.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This manuscript presents a conceptual reinterpretation of cosmological acceleration based on the symmetry structure of quantum theory. While the philosophical and algebraic ideas proposed are intriguing and intellectually engaging, the manuscript does not meet the scientific or technical standards required for publication in a journal such as AppliedMath.

 

I recommend rejection of this manuscript for AppliedMath. The work may be of interest to journals that focus on theoretical physics, algebraic foundations of quantum theory, or philosophical aspects of cosmology, but it is not appropriate for a journal dedicated to applied mathematical research.

 

Author Response

I am grateful to Reviewer 2 for his/her remarks that “the philosophical and algebraic ideas proposed are intriguing and intellectually engaging” and that “The work may be of interest to journals that focus on theoretical physics, algebraic foundations of quantum theory, or philosophical aspects of cosmology”. Nevertheless,  Reviewer 2 recommends rejection because, in his/her opinion, the paper is outside of the scope of AppliedMath. However, as Academic Editor notes, the paper is in the scope. Indeed, the description in Aims & Scope says, in particular:

• Mathematics and physics, including but not limited to:

….

• Quantum and field theories;
• General relativity and gravitation;

I am always surprised when reviewers recommend rejection without even reading the journal’s editorial policy.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

    This paper reviews the problem of the cosmological constant in cosmology and emphasizes the ideas of the author based on the contraction of more general symmetries to less ones. In this way,  (c,\hbar,R) are the contraction parameters and from there it results the author's explanation for Lambda, along the same lines as in [19]. This review is a nice and interesting compilation of author's work and reflections on the issue of the cosmological problem and quantum gravity, together with a profitable list of related references. I recommend its publication in Applied Mathematics.

Author Response

I am grateful to Reviewer 3 for his/her positive assessment of my paper and recommendation to accept it for publication. Reviewer 3 correctly notes that the main results of my paper follow from the fact that “(c,\hbar,R) are the contraction parameters and from there it results the author's explanation for Lambda”.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author has made notable improvements in the revised manuscript. The logical structure is clearer, the presentation of the Lie algebraic framework is more consistent, and historical context is better integrated. In this study, the author’s central claim is that dark energy is not needed to explain cosmological acceleration because the phenomenon emerges kinematically from the structure of quantum theory with de Sitter symmetry  without invoking spacetime background, fields, or vacuum energy. Instead of tweaking Einstein’s equations or introducing new fields, the paper leans entirely on group contractions, representation theory, and semiclassical approximations to derive results compatible with observations. A note 'This work presents a conceptual reinterpretation rather than a dynamical model and is intended to stimulate discussion in foundational approaches to quantum cosmology' may be involved in the manuscript.