A new perspective on Hubble's law through a four-dimensional spatial model: 4-Sphere-Cosmology

Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Hi everyone,

I've noticed with pleasure the growing number of threads on hypersphere cosmology. Although in 1917 Albert Einstein proposed a static model, the idea of a hypersphere cosmology, understood as a spatially closed, finite, and boundless universe, is historically attributed mainly to him.

This idea, with such illustrious origins, has been revisited by many since. However, I think it's important to emphasize that all the models I've seen differ substantially from one another. Therefore, rather than focusing on the idea that unites them, I believe it's crucial to examine the descriptions that distinguish them.

Having said that, I'm here to present a model that I myself have constructed. It wouldn't be practical to describe it exhaustively in a simple post, both due to its length and because it contains references to arXiv publications that I wouldn't be authorized to summarize here:



Concerning Galactic Recession, I have attempted to develop my own theory, of a speculative nature, and would be very interested in hearing your opinions here.

An introduction of my research was uploaded on viXra as PDF. The latest version of the document is always freely available to everyone, after you click the link: [viXra:2504.0144], on the viXra page (Download are free and require no registration; at the time of writing, all other cited documents, most of them from arXiv, are also freely accessible).

This submission aims to synthesize documents from diverse origins into a coherent and effective presentation for the reader's benefit.

That's the thing:

The recent observational capabilities of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are opening new windows into the early universe, revealing distant galaxies whose apparent rapid formation poses significant questions to the standard ΛCDM cosmological model. Observations of galaxies at redshifts above 14 (see JADES-GS-z14-0), implying extremely old ages according to current FLRW metric-based distance assumptions, might stimulate a thorough reflection on fundamental cosmological principles. Will it be possible to explain all this without violating Hubble's law? But really, does violating the FLRW metric necessarily imply a violation of Hubble's law?

The Big Bang theory remains a robust and widely accepted paradigm. Nevertheless, any of its potential modifications could have profound implications for related fields, including Quantum Field Theory. This raises a fundamental question: is there a basic aspect that needs a conceptual revision? Although ΛCDM has achieved remarkable successes, many of its validations implicitly assume the FLRW metric. Could this dependence potentially introduce circular reasoning into model verification?

In this work, an alternative approach to the phenomenon of Galactic Redshift is proposed, offering a possible pathway for a careful modification of the ΛCDM model through the adoption of a non-FLRW metric. In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center. This would explain why our physics manifests as if we were in a boundless system, despite the Universe having a finite volume: it suggests that, in the absence of Relativity, we would likely have been led to study an infinite and static universe.

While other models propose a hypersphere expanding with r = ct, an analysis of their main features reveals fundamental differences. The novelty of the model presented here lies in its definition of the Hubble constant: its geometry suggests a linear relationship between galactic recession and the arc angle (not the arc length). This perspective does not contest the validity of Hubble’s law, but introduces different predictions about the past and the future, which cannot be determined solely from current observations.

The use of the angle instead of the arc length produces significant implications, opening the possibility of applying Special Relativity to galactic recession. The redshift, which asymptotically approaches a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why, at the boundaries of the observable Universe with JWST, we should not expect to see only "baby galaxies".

Specifically, the 4-Sphere framework, often considered part of alternative cosmologies, could potentially be reconciled with the Standard Model. Based on supernova distance measurements, I suggest that the dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession might warrant further and careful reconsideration.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I have a semantic problem with this:

In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center.

If you have seen my postings on "observable universe"s being the only admissible meanings of "universe", you will anticipate my questions:

Where/when is the observer who sees "the Universe" residing on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its centre.

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang is not part of the "Universe", since "the Universe" resides on the surface . . . " with "with the Big Bang located at its centre"?

If you know anything of me, you will know that I do not use semantics to raise quibbles or create diversions. More accurately, I regard General Semantics (vide "Science and Sanity" by Alfred Korzybski) as an essential stepping stone in the furtherance of logical development.

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Last edited:

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I believe it is useless to engage in discussion, when the parties do not share common definitions and/or understandings of the terms employed. Hence:

Where/when is the observer who sees "the Universe" residing on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its centre.

Are you suggesting that the Big Bang is not part of the "Universe", since "the Universe" resides on the surface . . . " with "with the Big Bang located at its centre"?

Cat :)
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Our physics cannot directly detect the fourth dimension of space. As you will see if you decide to read, in this work, an alternative approach to the phenomenon of Galactic Redshift is proposed, offering a possible pathway for a careful modification of the ΛCDM model through the adoption of a non-FLRW metric. In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center. This would explain why our physics manifests as if we were in a boundless system, despite the Universe having a finite volume: it suggests that, in the absence of Relativity, we would likely have been led to study an infinite and static universe.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center.

OK, if we are not understanding the same language, how do you define Universe?

Cat :)

P.S. I am also a retired Chemical Engineer.
 
Last edited:
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Sorry, maybe I didn't understand. Are you denying the Big Bang? If so, then ok, my model contemplates it, if you deny the Big Bang then you deny my model, I have no problem with that.
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Cosmology, like other physics, also has a speculative part. One cannot deny the existence of what we don't see. The standard theory defines the Big Bang as a singularity. Can we observe it directly?
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Cosmology, like other physics, also has a speculative part. One cannot deny the existence of what we don't see. The standard theory defines the Big Bang as a singularity. Can we observe it directly?

I am replying to your previous post, but, meanwhile, are you saying the Big Bang is DEFINED as a singularity?

We do not appear to be using the same language.

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Cosmology, like other physics, also has a speculative part. One cannot deny the existence of what we don't see. The standard theory defines the Big Bang as a singularity. Can we observe it directly?

I am replying to your previous post, but, meanwhile, are you saying the Big Bang is DEFINED as a singularity?

We do not appear to be using the same language.
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Thank you for your thoughtful comment.

Let me clarify: the phrase "the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate" is not meant to imply that there is an external observer watching the universe from outside. Rather, it's a geometrical model — a way to describe the global topology and evolution of space-time, inspired by analogies from general relativity and cosmology.

The "center" in this context (i.e., the Big Bang at the center of the hypersphere) is not a location in our 3D space, but rather a conceptual point in a higher-dimensional embedding space. This embedding is often used to help visualize curved geometries — similar to how we might represent a 2D spherical surface embedded in 3D space to discuss curvature, even though no physical 3D observer is required.

Regarding "who" sees the universe this way: any internal observer (like us) could, in principle, deduce this structure from observations, but the model itself does not require an observer outside the universe. It’s an attempt to describe “all there is” from within, using higher-dimensional tools as an aid to intuition.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center.

Apologies if English is not your first language.

If the universe (observed by whom?) is "seen to reside" on the surface of a sphere, then it cannot also be at the centre of that sphere.

If your definition of Universe is "all there is", I ask "all there is" according to whom?
If you say that "whom" is an observer, I ask how you can have an observer, who is not part of the universe, can exist

Thus, the post makes no sense, and I do not participate in senseless discussions.

Can we please stick to defined terms and the English language?

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
"It’s an attempt to describe “all there is” from within, using higher-dimensional tools as an aid to intuition"

I understand what you say, but according to my posts on the subject, a hypothetical observer is required, operating in a higher dimension. This is more or less saying exactly the same. But it does require an observer outside our "observable universe".

Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Do you not accept this Google definition?

The universe encompasses everything – all of space, TIME, and their contents, including all matter, energy, and the structures they form, from sub-atomic particles to entire galaxies. It's everything that exists, including you, your planet, and the billions of stars and galaxies in the vast expanse of space.

My emphasis

Cat :)
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Hi Cat,

Thanks for your comments. I understand your concerns about definitions, and I agree it's important to be precise — especially in topics like this.

Just to clarify: I’m not proposing the existence of an observer outside the universe. When I say the universe “resides on the surface of a hypersphere,” I’m referring to a common way of modeling spatial curvature in general relativity — where the hypersphere is not a real 4D object in which the universe floats, but a mathematical construct that helps describe the geometry of an isotropic and finite universe with no boundaries.

In this view, the “center” of the hypersphere isn’t a location in space that can be visited — it’s not part of space-time at all. The Big Bang, as understood in standard cosmology, happened everywhere at once in this curved space.

There’s no need for an external observer. The entire model is meant to be self-contained, with observers like us embedded within the hypersurface itself.


Happy to discuss this further, but no worries if it’s not your preferred way to approach cosmology.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
I am happy to continue, if we can find some common ground.

For starters, what is your definition of "universe"?
Are you suggesting there is only one "Universe"?
If so, it seems to infringe Forum Rules, as it invokes religion.

Cat :)
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
I’m absolutely happy to define terms and clarify the framework of the model I referred to. No religion is being invoked — quite the contrary, I’m discussing a geometrical representation inspired by general relativity and standard cosmology.


By Universe I simply mean what most cosmologists mean: the totality of space-time, energy, and matter that is causally connected and physically meaningful in our models. That doesn’t assume there is only one “universe” in an absolute sense — but for the purposes of the model I proposed, I’m referring to a single connected 4D structure that evolves over time.


This has nothing to do with metaphysics or theology. If the forum has specific definitions it requires us to use, I’ll be happy to align with those.


Let’s focus on the geometry and physics — I think that’s common ground we can explore constructively.
 
Feb 24, 2025
19
1
15
Hi Cat,

Thank you for pointing me to your thread — I’ll consider reviewing it as time permits. That said, I believe the core of this discussion remains within the realm of cosmological modeling and spacetime geometry, rather than broader questions about the philosophy or methodology of science.

While those are certainly important topics, they might not directly alter the framework or intent of the specific model I’m presenting here.

Appreciate the exchange and your engagement.
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
First point.

There is some difficulty. in that science, quite rightly, has to do with observation and experiment.

This is not possible, in relation to Cosmology.

Here we must make assumptions as we can only deal scientifically with "observable universes".
Hence my comment on religion. It is the only option, which admits of one observer.
So, I must ask, do you agree with my position on "observable universes"?

So anything relating to Cosmology is not strictly "scientific". It is metaphysical.

It is not surprising that there are communication difficulties, as there is no scientific basis.
We must rely on logic, which says that there must be any number of intelligent species in any number of observable universes, and that these observable universes can overlap.
Thus "The Universe" is, if not a fiction, then, at least, unknowable.


Cat :)
 

Catastrophe

"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Hi Cat,

Thank you for pointing me to your thread — I’ll consider reviewing it as time permits. That said, I believe the core of this discussion remains within the realm of cosmological modeling and spacetime geometry, rather than broader questions about the philosophy or methodology of science.

While those are certainly important topics, they might not directly alter the framework or intent of the specific model I’m presenting here.

Appreciate the exchange and your engagement.

I understand what you say. There is not much to read in the thread referenced.

More to follow . . . . . . . . .
 

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts