Implications of a Closed Universe

[primpre]

This paper pertains to the interval between a near singularity and the onset of the putative Big Bang, and subsequent developments. A hypothetical emergent bounded universe, governed by a single overarching precept (P1) that reality cannot be unbound, is followed in its evolution through a sequence of causal feedback loops involving sustained cosmic energy generation, from a cold point-presence to a close fit analogue of a classic unbound hot Big Bang universe. P1 theory embraces the Standard Model and presents the curvature of space, and time as quantum-based effects. Comparison of a range of counterpart features from the two theories suggests that a P1 universe may meet the criteria for a grand unified theory, and that we might be living in such a universe.
For full manuscript see: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15NVXoV8fBeRrRFCV66EYT0xruzhkpKHL/view?usp=sharing
Looking forward to your questions and views.

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

I downloaded your article. I am pursuing an alternative cosmology project and have long tried, without the necessary skills, to explain the tachyon (whose presence is demonstrated by quantum entanglement). I gave up because the problems of a cosmological model are enormous, and the tachyon is the last among them. But one day I will resume seeking a connection with quantum field theory.

 

[Catastrophe]

This paper pertains to the interval between a near singularity and the onset of the putative Big Bang, and subsequent developments. A hypothetical emergent bounded universe, governed by a single overarching precept (P1) that reality cannot be unbound, is followed in its evolution through a sequence of causal feedback loops involving sustained cosmic energy generation, from a cold point-presence to a close fit analogue of a classic unbound hot Big Bang universe. P1 theory embraces the Standard Model and presents the curvature of space, and time as quantum-based effects. Comparison of a range of counterpart features from the two theories suggests that a P1 universe may meet the criteria for a grand unified theory, and that we might be living in such a universe.
For full manuscript see: https://drive.google.com/file/d/15NVXoV8fBeRrRFCV66EYT0xruzhkpKHL/view?usp=sharing
Looking forward to your questions and views.

Welcome to the forum!

Before attempting to read this paper, I have a question which I need to ask to enable me to fix the background.

It would seem to me, that any time interval between a supposed singularity and the "commencement" of a supposed Big Bang is right bang in the area between Science and Metaphysics. Would you agree? . . . . . . and what is your reaction to this?

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

I downloaded your article. I am pursuing an alternative cosmology project and have long tried, without the necessary skills, to explain the tachyon (whose presence is demonstrated by quantum entanglement). I gave up because the problems of a cosmological model are enormous, and the tachyon is the last among them. But one day I will resume seeking a connection with quantum field theory.

This interested me, but you said nothing for me to 'get a grip'. So a bit of research re tachyons and entanglement is called for. Apologies for the diversion primpre.
.... I cannot find any connection except in sci-Fi

 

[primpre]

What a welcome! But thank you.
I can't speak for metaphysics, but thank you for pointing that out. If I understand you correctly, I can only say that Big Bang theory does not presume that cosmic inflation starts from a singularity. The size of the universe at the time of inflation has been roughly presented as anywhere from a golf ball to small grapefruit. I assume that those general estimates derive from the point where surface to volume ratio passes through 1 at 3 cm radius. That leaves a lot of room for the first phase phase to develop. Does that address your concern?
prmpre

 

[primpre]

I downloaded your article. I am pursuing an alternative cosmology project and have long tried, without the necessary skills, to explain the tachyon (whose presence is demonstrated by quantum entanglement). I gave up because the problems of a cosmological model are enormous, and the tachyon is the last among them. But one day I will resume seeking a connection with quantum field theory.

Well, Claudio, that is quite a project, especially considering that we haven't even found a graviton yet. Good luck with it, though.
prmpre

 

[primpre]

Welcome to the forum!

Before attempting to read this paper, I have a question which I need to ask to enable me to fix the background.

It would seem to me, that any time interval between a supposed singularity and the "commencement" of a supposed Big Bang is right bang in the area between Science and Metaphysics. Would you agree? . . . . . . and what is your reaction to this?

Cat

What a welcome! But thank you.
I can't speak for metaphysics, but thank you for pointing that out. If I understand you correctly, I can only say that Big Bang theory does not presume that cosmic inflation starts directly from a singularity. The size of the universe at the time of inflation has been roughly presented as anywhere from a golf ball to small grapefruit. I assume that those general estimates derive from the point where surface to volume ratio passes through 1 at 3 cm radius. That leaves a lot of room for the first phase phase to develop. Does that address your concern?
prmpre
ps- sorry if this is a duplicate

 

[Catastrophe]

What a welcome! But thank you.
I can't speak for metaphysics, but thank you for pointing that out. If I understand you correctly, I can only say that Big Bang theory does not presume that cosmic inflation starts from a singularity. The size of the universe at the time of inflation has been roughly presented as anywhere from a golf ball to small grapefruit. I assume that those general estimates derive from the point where surface to volume ratio passes through 1 at 3 cm radius. That leaves a lot of room for the first phase phase to develop. Does that address your concern?

prmpre
ps- sorry this is a duplicate

Just Google 'cosmic inflation':

Cosmic inflation is the theory that the universe expanded rapidly and exponentially in its first moments

The period between a singularity and cosmic inflation is incredibly short, estimated to be around 10^-36 to 10^-32 seconds

_____-32
10 seconds

Cat

 

[primpre]

Just Google 'cosmic inflation':





-32
10 seconds

Cat

Actually a P1 universe is always in a state of inflation on a hyperbolic curve, as explained in the text. The time frame of expansion is much slower though, but it is still exponential. It may not assume the expansion rate of a classic BB universe until somewhere around nucleosynthesis.
primpre

 

[Catastrophe]

Actually a P1 universe is always in a state of inflation on a hyperbolic curve, as explained in the text. The time frame of expansion is much slower though, but it is still exponential. It may not assume the expansion rate of a classic BB universe until somewhere around nucleosynthesis.
primpre

What has this to do with my post please?

Are you saying this is incorrect?

Cosmic inflation is a theory proposing an incredibly rapid, exponential expansion of the early universe, occurring in a minuscule fraction of a second after the Big Bang,

 

[primpre]

What has this to do with my post please?

Are you saying this is incorrect?

Not at all. It is just a different theory that brings us to the same end. But I want to correct one part of my response to: ' It may not assume the energy density of a classic BB universe until somewhere around nucleosynthesis.' The time it takes is immaterial under P1 theory.

 

[Catastrophe]

You lost me. My refs to time between (alleged) singularity and (so-called BB) give about 10^-32 and you say time is ? irrekevant? Please help.
If it helps, I am no fan of (alleged) singularity anywat.

Cat

 

[primpre]

You lost me. My refs to time between (alleged) singularity and (so-called BB) give about 10^-32 and you say time is ? irrekevant? Please help.
If it helps, I am no fan of (alleged) singularity anywat.

Cat

Pardon. I have a somewhat compromised right hand and don't always catch my typos. The word is irrelevant. It naturally takes much longer for a P1 universe to develop because it involves a continuous series of causal feedback loops. In the paper I refer to it as a slow roll process, borrowing from a theoretical process of vacuum decay. Actually, a P1 universe starts at a point after the so called singularity, so whether it is a singularity or not doesn't matter. It could even be a collapsed previous universe that bounced back at the point where it is reduced to precursor. I haven't really pursued that in the paper because it wouldn't change the outcome. You really should read the paper. I think you may enjoy it.

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

I'm taking advantage of this pause in the discussion to address the question about tachyons, a fascinating and complex topic. In the postscript, I'll provide some information about tachyons, but I'd like to briefly engage all participants with this question, that interests me too:

Bohm proposed an interpretation of Entanglement, ensuring that the principle of causality remained intact. However, if we were to admit the existence of compact dimensions and tachyons, would it still be necessary to uphold the relativistic origin of this principle?

PS. I've come across two different formulations that deserve attention:

Tachyons and Relativity: Some studies explore the possibility of tachyons by extending the concept of causality without drastically altering special relativity. An interesting example is this article: https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9607232. The basic idea is to modify the understanding of causality to allow for the existence of particles that travel faster than light, without completely overturning special relativity.

Compact Dimensions and String Theory: Another perspective, as presented in this article: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/9/24/5406, does not focus directly on tachyons, but introduces the possibility of extra "compact" spatial dimensions. This concept is central to string theory, where it's hypothesized that there are additional dimensions curled up on themselves at microscopic scales.

Personally, I find the idea of compact dimensions particularly interesting, as it integrates perfectly with string theory. It's seems that tachyons posed a problem in the early versions of this theory, but they have been eliminated in the more recent formulations. Compact dimensions, on the other hand, are a fundamental feature of the theory and play a crucial role in determining the properties of particles and forces. In practice, these extra dimensions connect distant points in space through very short "shortcuts."

A question arises spontaneously: could these "shortcuts" be used by tachyons? Although modern superstring theory does not predict tachyons, the possibility that they could exploit compact dimensions to move between distant points in space-time remains a fascinating hypothesis.

I hope this brief overview is helpful for those who wish to delve deeper into the subject. As far as I'm concerned, I don't have enough skill to deal with the topic.