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.

 

[Gibsense]

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.

Of course I am nobody. However, I have always found the idea that extra dimensions should be rolled up ridiculous. Extra dimensions YES. But why roll them up? A 2 D person could not 'see' an extra (third) dimension, so why should an extra 4th spatial dimension be 'seen'? Duh. Rolling up is not necessary. And, where is the postulate that extra spatial dimensions are limited in number?
So, let's say you have 4 spatial dimensions. Each dimension is the same as every other (say). So for a 3D person and environment you can perm any three from the four. Of course they may overlap on two or even just one dimension (if 5). ( NB this logic is easy for me as I consider time a process not a dimension, and Relativity valid but expressed differently). So it (to me) is possible for 'worlds' to overlap/intersect with ours even if they also are limited to 3D (but a different combination).

I thought the idea of tachyons might gain some traction in the light of the above, but I cannot see how that might be. Worth a thought though.

 

[Gibsense]

I had a look at your links but they are beyond my paygrade. Sorry,

 

[primpre]

I hear ya. It was well above mine when I first took it on.

 

[Gandalf]

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.

I have read your paper and it aligns with my theories in many aspects, however, I must question your assumptions about the "Higgs boson precursor (Precursor) under P1".

I am of the view that the Higgs Field cannot exist without a UB and that the Higgs field is directly related to it; in fact the Higgs Field is generated by the UB. Perhaps the relationship could be exactly as you describe in your paper once the UB is established and reality is created.

In any case, I understand that the Higgs Bosun exists as a result of the Higgs Field, so how can we have a Higgs Bosun prior to the existence of "reality" and the UB as you state it?

 

[Catastrophe]

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 calledu state: 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.

You state:

Its quantum compatibility distinguishes it from an absolute vacuum that cannot conduct
radiation and is, therefore, the equivalent of zero K.

so I didn't read further.

Unlike heat transfer by conduction or convection, radiation travels through space in the form of electromagnetic waves. Heat is transferred in a vacuum by radiation, as in
the Sun's energy traveling by electromagnetic radiation.
"Radiation, specifically electromagnetic radiation like light and heat, travels through an absolute vacuum because it doesn't require a medium (like air or water) for propagation."
{Google}

Do you disagree with this?

Cat

 

[Claudio Marchesan]

I moved the Tachyons topic here: https://forums.space.com/threads/tachyons.70444/

 

[primpre]

You state:



so I didn't read further.

Unlike heat transfer by conduction or convection, radiation travels through space in the form of electromagnetic waves. Heat is transferred in a vacuum by radiation, as in
the Sun's energy traveling by electromagnetic radiation.
"Radiation, specifically electromagnetic radiation like light and heat, travels through an absolute vacuum because it doesn't require a medium (like air or water) for propagation."
{Google}

Do you disagree with this?

Cat

What you are implying is that radiation has been leaking from the universe from the start and always will. The theory pertaining to the Higgs boson provides for two levels of vacuum- the metastable vacuum that we live in, and the true vacuum to which the Higgs boson can theoretically decay. That is still above an absolute vacuum in accordance with the non zero nature of the Higgs boson. So, it is speculative, for sure, to assume that emr cannot travel through an absolute vacuum. but an absolute vacuum is equivalent to imaginary space, which is the other possibility that I considered.
Another point is that in P1 theory the universe begins as Precursor which condenses to Higgs bosons at the interface of reality. From that point all I had to do to construct our universe was to follow the logic, with some very interesting discoveries along the way, like the universal energy equation. And the roll of precursor fits very nicely into the dark energy slot. So it all seems very natural to me.

I have read your paper and it aligns with my theories in many aspects, however, I must question your assumptions about the "Higgs boson precursor (Precursor) under P1".

I am of the view that the Higgs Field cannot exist without a UB and that the Higgs field is directly related to it; in fact the Higgs Field is generated by the UB. Perhaps the relationship could be exactly as you describe in your paper once the UB is established and reality is created.

In any case, I understand that the Higgs Bosun exists as a result of the Higgs Field, so how can we have a Higgs Bosun prior to the existence of "reality" and the UB as you state it?

Hi Gandolf,
In P1 theory, the Higgs field is structural in nature. It is a condensate of Precursor at the cold interface of reality and the absolute vacuum (or imaginary space) beyond. That is the reactivity of Precursor. It is admittedly a departure from conventional theory but I attribute that to the fact that conventional theory does not entertain a precursor nor consider an interface.

 

[Catastrophe]

What you are implying is that radiation has been leaking from the universe from the start and always will. The theory pertaining to the Higgs boson provides for two levels of vacuum- the metastable vacuum that we live in, and the true vacuum to which the Higgs boson can theoretically decay. That is still above an absolute vacuum in accordance with the non zero nature of the Higgs boson. So, it is speculative, for sure, to assume that emr cannot travel through an absolute vacuum. but an absolute vacuum is equivalent to imaginary space, which is the other possibility that I considered.
Another point is that in P1 theory the universe begins as Precursor which condenses to Higgs bosons at the interface of reality. From that point all I had to do to construct our universe was to follow the logic, with some very interesting discoveries along the way, like the universal energy equation. And the roll of precursor fits very nicely into the dark energy slot. So it all seems very natural to me.

I was not intending to imply anything.

I thought this (from Google) was correct, but apparently it is not.

"Radiation, specifically electromagnetic radiation like light and heat, travels through an absolute vacuum because it doesn't require a medium (like air or water) for propagation."
{Google}

If it is incorrect, as you suggest, then please ignore my post.

Cat

 

[primpre]

What you are implying is that radiation has been leaking from the universe from the start and always will. The theory pertaining to the Higgs boson provides for two levels of vacuum- the metastable vacuum that we live in, and the true vacuum to which the Higgs boson can theoretically decay. That is still above an absolute vacuum in accordance with the non zero nature of the Higgs boson. So, it is speculative, for sure, to assume that emr cannot travel through an absolute vacuum. but an absolute vacuum is equivalent to imaginary space, which is the other possibility that I considered.
Another point is that in P1 theory the universe begins as Precursor which condenses to Higgs bosons at the interface of reality. From that point all I had to do to construct our universe was to follow the logic, with some very interesting discoveries along the way, like the universal energy equation. And the roll of precursor fits very nicely into the dark energy slot. So it all seems very natural to me.




Hi Gandolf,
In P1 theory, the Higgs field is structural in nature. It is a condensate of Precursor at the cold interface of reality and the absolute vacuum (or imaginary space) beyond. That is the reactivity of Precursor. It is admittedly a departure from conventional theory but I attribute that to the fact that conventional theory does not entertain a precursor nor consider an interface.

I was not intending to imply anything.

I thought this (from Google) was correct, but apparently it is not.



If it is incorrect, as you suggest, then please ignore my post.

Cat

Have a good one.