Maybe the Universe is a 4 spatial dimension Hypersphere

[Gibsense]

• A 3-sphere is a hypersphere, a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere (a ball)
• The surface of an n-sphere is an(n-1) sphere. For example, the surface of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere
• Although the radius of a hypersphere is undefined it seems reasonable to assume the radius of the surface of the hypersphere (a sphere/Ball) is still Pi.2r
• The surface of a hypersphere has 3 spatial dimensions.
• One second is equivalent to 299,792,458 meters and either can be used in calculations.
• Time is reinterpreted as a process of the Universe’s Expansion and not a 4th Dimension (in this proposal)
• The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years approximately and increases in proportion to the expansion of the 2-sphere i.e. can be considered as the radius.
• For every passing second the circumference of the 2- sphere increases to give a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately calculated from 2Pi.r where r is assumed to be the universe's age using 1 second=299,792,458 meters.

You may need references for some statements you find surprising - please ask if so. I'll post some anyway soon if interest is shown.
If a discussion occurs I can provide ( if requested - by email), for example, a spreadsheet (excel) to show the Hubble Constant variation with the Universe's possible ages (long-hand arithmetic calculation but automatic with manual age entry) and/or diagrams in JIT format.

There are several interesting consequences should the above prove correct which require reasoning but they may explain:
1. Why the expansion rate appears to be increasing and also why it may be from time to time (given our universe is a Black Hole and we are inside it)
2. That the so-called early galaxies are pretty much the same as local galaxies
3. Some quantum mechanic issues but these are a stretch.

 

[Gibsense]

• A 3-sphere is a hypersphere, a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere (a ball)
• The surface of an n-sphere is an(n-1) sphere. For example, the surface of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere
• Although the radius of a hypersphere is undefined it seems reasonable to assume the radius of the surface of the hypersphere (a sphere/Ball) is still Pi.2r
• The surface of a hypersphere has 3 spatial dimensions.
• One second is equivalent to 299,792,458 meters and either can be used in calculations.
• Time is reinterpreted as a process of the Universe’s Expansion and not a 4th Dimension (in this proposal)
• The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years approximately and increases in proportion to the expansion of the 2-sphere i.e. can be considered as the radius.
• For every passing second the circumference of the 2- sphere increases to give a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately calculated from 2Pi.r where r is assumed to be the universe's age using 1 second=299,792,458 meters.

You may need references for some statements you find surprising - please ask if so. I'll post some anyway soon if interest is shown.
If a discussion occurs I can provide ( if requested - by email), for example, a spreadsheet (excel) to show the Hubble Constant variation with the Universe's possible ages (long-hand arithmetic calculation but automatic with manual age entry) and/or diagrams in JIT format.

There are several interesting consequences should the above prove correct which require reasoning but they may explain:
1. Why the expansion rate appears to be increasing and also why it may be from time to time (given our universe is a Black Hole and we are inside it)
2. That the so-called early galaxies are pretty much the same as local galaxies
3. Some quantum mechanic issues but these are a stretch.

Just realised that the 13.8 billion year age of the universe is estimated from the CMB (giving a Hubble Constant of 70.855) but that was about 380,000 years after the Big Bang - Whereas the Hubble Constant derived from the Hubble Telescope estimate is an assumption right back to the Big Bang which of course adds another 380,000 years to the age of the universe. A number of approximately 14.18 billion years. Using the latter age gives a Hubble Constant of 68.956
So, Taking the method of deriving the Hubble Constant based on Spherical Expansion we can derive the seemingly two irreconcilable answers for the Hubble Constant. Problem solved?

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dear Gibsense
I am only studying now. In some papers they claim time to enter as a multidimensional component as may symmetry theories propose for example 11 dimensions.
As soon as I understand the nature of time and how it influences DM DE Or Matter-energy and or our macroscopic universe, I will start posting more about it.

In the meantime about your mentioning the Universe to be 4D, my study determines the mass-energy containing universe to be 7 Dimensional.
There are are mathematical reasons explained in my paper which will be published shortly.
Regards,
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Gibsense]

Hi DrRavishama,
I hope you enjoy success with your paper - just a few points ;

• The 4 Dimensions for the suggested hypersphere are spatial.
• I did not intend that my suggestions should limit the number of dimensions of our universe but only that 4 are 'used' to explain reality
• There is a limit to the number of spatial dimensions that can be applied (that limit may be 5 but I am not sure. Some research may well back me up - sorry I cannot remember the details
• By using the 'excuse' that extra dimensions may be rolled up tight as to appear almost 1-dimensional can be used to propose at least 11 apparently
• Not mentioned by me on this thread (it is a bit far out) is that I think 5 spatial dimensions affect our reality by providing our universe with another additional time. This involves an expansion of space perpendicular to the other 4 spatial dimensions.

Of course, it may well be that other realities combine dimensions in similar ways to our universe but that they are using different combinations to ours. Any overlap would be intriguing but again this thought is "far out"

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Dear Gibsense, upon relook your dimensions are same as what I am used to describing physics. If we talk of Euclidian space, we can relate Hilbert and Fock space and notations like Wolfram map these.
LHC has used multidimensional algorithms to detect particles and resonances and I do not mean multivariate formalism.
What I meant was 7 dimensioned affine space and that is the subject of my upcoming paper, which I will discuss in details when published. Sorry for delay in journal printing schedules!

Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Atlan0001]

Three dimensions enclose space (close the system) in a cube-box, or in a sphere.

The fourth dimension of space is '0' (0-point (t=0)) and it opens up space up and out, and, at one and the same time, down and in. It floats . . . it zooms . . . it expands and contracts (to infinity . . . to infinities)!

 

[Atlan0001]

The fourth dimension of space, "0-point (t=0)", isn't classical physics. No matter whether microcosmic or macrocosmic, it is quantum physic.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Three dimensions enclose space (close the system) in a cube-box, or in a sphere.

The fourth dimension of space is '0' (0-point (t=0)) and it opens up space up and out, and, at one and the same time, down and in.

Dear Atlan0001
I purposely stopped at the end of sentence..at "down and in."
The reason is to make us look at the center of cube, that in Geometry is the origin of 4-dimensional space. Also think of tesseract. There is lot more beyond in upcoming article.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Atlan0001]

Dear Atlan0001
I purposely stopped at the end of sentence..at "down and in."
The reason is to make us look at the center of cube, that in Geometry is the origin of 4-dimensional space. Also think of tesseract. There is lot more beyond in upcoming article.
Thanks.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

"Tesseract." Though I know about the geometry of "zoom structure" having described it numerous times, I must remember that word description of it ("tesseract"). Thanks. The fourth dimension is actually point dimensionless since it continues zooming in contraction, or compaction, to the infinitesimal, a spatial geometry, though, without and opposed to the gravity, the same as in the other dimension of a self-similar zoom-fractal-antigravitational expansion to the infinite. We cut off the infinitesimal and infinite . . . zero it out in horizon . . . to get finite our horizons, relatively speaking that is.

Thanks again for "tesseract"!

 

[Gibsense]

After a discussion with Gemini, I am inclined to think that our universe may be a white hole existing on the surface of an absolutely massive hypersphere far exceeding the size of our known universe. Perhaps many such white holes exist similarly. Each universe of course may contain many Black Holes each one potentially having the ability to generate white hole universes; a whole network on a Hypersphere of such size that curvature would be barely detectable.
The idea that the shape of the universe is a Torus is based entirely, it seems to me, on "flatness"/parallel lines. I think this is fanciful.

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Hoping my paper will come out within next couple of months which I will share and the space we are talking is multidimensional hypersphere and particle physicists are sometimes talking of 11 dimensional space when they discuss electro-weak and HEP particle resonances.
In my work 7 dimensions are important and we will see that later after the paper which explains the reasons.
Please continue the dialog in the meantime.
Thanks

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Gibsense]

Looking Forward to your Paper DrRaviSharma!

 

[Gibsense]

We should notice that I should not say that time is the 4th dimension. It is a radial direction existing in 4 spatial dimensions. If for example, we are a hypersphere (the surface of a hyper-ball) Then some directions in the surface will correspond to some directions of the radius ie all dimensions of time or space have no unique claim to a particular direction in embedding space!

 

[Atlan0001]

"Tesseract." Though I know about the geometry of "zoom structure" having described it numerous times, I must remember that word description of it ("tesseract"). Thanks. The fourth dimension is actually point dimensionless since it continues zooming in contraction, or compaction, to the infinitesimal, a spatial geometry, though, without and opposed to the gravity, the same as in the other dimension of a self-similar zoom-fractal-antigravitational expansion to the infinite. We cut off the infinitesimal and infinite . . . zero it out in horizon . . . to get finite our horizons, relatively speaking that is.

Thanks again for "tesseract"!

Have you noticed my big mistake, since realized myself many times over, in the statement, ".... without and opposed to the gravity ...." Gravity [is] vector SPACE (emergent SPACE) universe (directions and magnitudes (fractal zooms structure of universe)), rather than force.
--------------------------

"Please don't hold me to anything I said before I knew better!" -- Albert Einstein.

 

[Gibsense]

Have you noticed my big mistake, since realized myself many times over, in the statement, ".... without and opposed to the gravity ...." Gravity [is] vector SPACE (emergent SPACE) universe (directions and magnitudes (fractal zooms structure of universe)), rather than force.
--------------------------

"Please don't hold me to anything I said before I knew better!" -- Albert Einstein.

It can be quite Baffling. Tesseracts especially.

 

[Gibsense]

Hoping my paper will come out within next couple of months which I will share and the space we are talking is multidimensional hypersphere and particle physicists are sometimes talking of 11 dimensional space when they discuss electro-weak and HEP particle resonances.
In my work 7 dimensions are important and we will see that later after the paper which explains the reasons.
Please continue the dialog in the meantime.
Thanks

Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

Maybe you can answer a point that puzzles me. I must be ignorant of some important fact:- Why do mathematicians, and string theorists, insist on rolled-up extra dimensions? Why do they have to be rolled up? Surely normal spatial dimensions will do (?)

 

[Atlan0001]

Maybe you can answer a point that puzzles me. I must be ignorant of some important fact:- Why do mathematicians, and string theorists, insist on rolled-up extra dimensions? Why do they have to be rolled up? Surely normal spatial dimensions will do (?)

One possible (folded) response:

Tesseract - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Thanks for renewed interest in this very important and consequential topic.
Unfortunately there are printing delays and paper is yet to be released to public by the journal.

Meantime some comments:
Tesseract has been known for about 4k years and recently described by Wolfram alpha website also. Not only that but I have studied, although not everything fully understood yet, the dimensions to about 10, in affine space where you forget the origin and for each dimension higher the origins of previous dimensions are forgotten thus each higher space is kind of having its own origin. However concepts such as transitions (analogy is tunneling in quantum states) among different dimensions are permitted! This also hopefully explains Gibsense's question on "rollup"

Back to Tesseract or 4D space. A space whose origin is the center point of a cube!

Imagine also each of the lines of cube (including top and bottom surfaces) and imagine a cube formed at each line, then one gets an idea of the 4D space.

The math and its relationship in Affine, Hilbert and Euclidean space will be discussed in the paper! Apologize for Journal Delays.

Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Gibsense]

Thanks for renewed interest in this very important and consequential topic.
Unfortunately there are printing delays and paper is yet to be released to public by the journal.

Meantime some comments:
Tesseract has been known for about 4k years and recently described by Wolfram alpha website also. Not only that but I have studied, although not everything fully understood yet, the dimensions to about 10, in affine space where you forget the origin and for each dimension higher the origins of previous dimensions are forgotten thus each higher space is kind of having its own origin. However concepts such as transitions (analogy is tunneling in quantum states) among different dimensions are permitted! This also hopefully explains Gibsense's question on "rollup"

Back to Tesseract or 4D space. A space whose origin is the center point of a cube!

Imagine also each of the lines of cube (including top and bottom surfaces) and imagine a cube formed at each line, then one gets an idea of the 4D space.

The math and its relationship in Affine, Hilbert and Euclidean space will be discussed in the paper! Apologize for Journal Delays.

Regards.
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

Thanks for the explanations. As I see it you discuss various embedding space possibilities. Hence a 4D focus on a 4D cube (affine space sort of Euclidian space).

This thread discusses an object existing within affine space—a different geometry based on a hypersphere. It seems to me that your paper will discuss affine spaces (?)

To emphasise my point: Two potential 4D objects to describe our universe - 1. Hypersphere: space on the surface of an n-Ball - different geometry to Euclidian on a large scale (with predictable consequences eg Hubble Constant)
2. A 4D Cube: A simple (tesseract) existing in near Euclidian space with infinities galore and no consequential predictions (lol, a deliberate challenge to poke open some stuff

 

[DrRaviSharma]

Hi Gibsense
The 4D or higher spaces that I will describe include hypercircles and we normalize to radius one, need not necessarily be Euclidean only. It is simpler than hypersphere, but hypersphere would likely not change the Physics that I will discuss.
But it would be interesting to read your work as to how you would describe the universe with just 4D, is this only EM i.e. photon universe?
Regards,
Ravi
(Dr. Ravi Sharma, Ph.D. USA)
NASA Apollo Achievement Award
ISRO Distinguished Service Awards
Former MTS NASA HQ MSEB Apollo
Former Scientific Secretary ISRO HQ
Ontolog Board of Trustees
Particle and Space Physics
Senior Enterprise Architect
SAE Fuel Cell Tech Committee voting member for 20 years.
http://www.linkedin.com/in/drravisharma

 

[Gibsense]

Hi Gibsense
The 4D or higher spaces that I will describe include hypercircles and we normalize to radius one, need not necessarily be Euclidean only. It is simpler than hypersphere, but hypersphere would likely not change the Physics that I will discuss.
But it would be interesting to read your work as to how you would describe the universe with just 4D, is this only EM i.e. photon universe?

I would not restrict the universe to 4 spatial dimensions. 5 spatial dimensions at least are needed (Imaginary time at 90 degrees to our time experience) for some Quantum Mechanics solutions. I cannot remember the context but I recall that the 'flexibility' of design reduces after 5 dimensions. Frustrating!
Please note I am a layman known to be successful with 'out of the box' solutions in my career but limited in scope.

 

[SMyers]

• A 3-sphere is a hypersphere, a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere (a ball)
• The surface of an n-sphere is an(n-1) sphere. For example, the surface of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere
• Although the radius of a hypersphere is undefined it seems reasonable to assume the radius of the surface of the hypersphere (a sphere/Ball) is still Pi.2r
• The surface of a hypersphere has 3 spatial dimensions.
• One second is equivalent to 299,792,458 meters and either can be used in calculations.
• Time is reinterpreted as a process of the Universe’s Expansion and not a 4th Dimension (in this proposal)
• The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years approximately and increases in proportion to the expansion of the 2-sphere i.e. can be considered as the radius.
• For every passing second the circumference of the 2- sphere increases to give a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately calculated from 2Pi.r where r is assumed to be the universe's age using 1 second=299,792,458 meters.

You may need references for some statements you find surprising - please ask if so. I'll post some anyway soon if interest is shown.
If a discussion occurs I can provide ( if requested - by email), for example, a spreadsheet (excel) to show the Hubble Constant variation with the Universe's possible ages (long-hand arithmetic calculation but automatic with manual age entry) and/or diagrams in JIT format.

There are several interesting consequences should the above prove correct which require reasoning but they may explain:
1. Why the expansion rate appears to be increasing and also why it may be from time to time (given our universe is a Black Hole and we are inside it)
2. That the so-called early galaxies are pretty much the same as local galaxies
3. Some quantum mechanic issues but these are a stretch.

Hello ! I guess I should have read through some threads before posting lol. I starting tackling this topic last year and wrote a short essay. Text can be found here:

<<Removed by moderator>>

An hypersphere geometry seems to adequately address a number of issues, specifically the cosmic microwave background.

 

[SMyers]

Hi DrRavishama,
I hope you enjoy success with your paper - just a few points ;

• The 4 Dimensions for the suggested hypersphere are spatial.
• I did not intend that my suggestions should limit the number of dimensions of our universe but only that 4 are 'used' to explain reality
• There is a limit to the number of spatial dimensions that can be applied (that limit may be 5 but I am not sure. Some research may well back me up - sorry I cannot remember the details
• By using the 'excuse' that extra dimensions may be rolled up tight as to appear almost 1-dimensional can be used to propose at least 11 apparently
• Not mentioned by me on this thread (it is a bit far out) is that I think 5 spatial dimensions affect our reality by providing our universe with another additional time. This involves an expansion of space perpendicular to the other 4 spatial dimensions.

Of course, it may well be that other realities combine dimensions in similar ways to our universe but that they are using different combinations to ours. Any overlap would be intriguing but again this thought is "far out"

The primary difference in my hypersphere reasoning is that 4D space is NOT spatial in all four dimensions. Rather that there are the three spatial Euclidean dimensions (x,y,z) and then one Time dimension that is not related to the other three. the Time vector is expressed as the radius of the hyberball.

 

[George²]

which of course adds another 380,000 years to the age of the universe. A number of approximately 14.18 billion years

No. Thousands is are far to the right after the decimal point. When sum correctly 13.8B+0.00038B result is? I wait for your new calculation my friend.

 

[Jim Franklin]

• A 3-sphere is a hypersphere, a 2-sphere is an ordinary sphere (a ball)
• The surface of an n-sphere is an(n-1) sphere. For example, the surface of a 3-sphere is a 2-sphere
• Although the radius of a hypersphere is undefined it seems reasonable to assume the radius of the surface of the hypersphere (a sphere/Ball) is still Pi.2r
• The surface of a hypersphere has 3 spatial dimensions.
• One second is equivalent to 299,792,458 meters and either can be used in calculations.
• Time is reinterpreted as a process of the Universe’s Expansion and not a 4th Dimension (in this proposal)
• The age of the universe is 13.8 billion years approximately and increases in proportion to the expansion of the 2-sphere i.e. can be considered as the radius.
• For every passing second the circumference of the 2- sphere increases to give a Hubble Constant of 71 approximately calculated from 2Pi.r where r is assumed to be the universe's age using 1 second=299,792,458 meters.

You may need references for some statements you find surprising - please ask if so. I'll post some anyway soon if interest is shown.
If a discussion occurs I can provide ( if requested - by email), for example, a spreadsheet (excel) to show the Hubble Constant variation with the Universe's possible ages (long-hand arithmetic calculation but automatic with manual age entry) and/or diagrams in JIT format.

There are several interesting consequences should the above prove correct which require reasoning but they may explain:
1. Why the expansion rate appears to be increasing and also why it may be from time to time (given our universe is a Black Hole and we are inside it)
2. That the so-called early galaxies are pretty much the same as local galaxies
3. Some quantum mechanic issues but these are a stretch.

Here’s a concise and reasoned refutation of your post, addressing its misconceptions and speculative leaps without too much deep thinking. I have put on a "professor" hat for this as if I was marking work.

Refutation of Key Points:

1. Misunderstanding of n-Spheres
   While it's true that the "surface" of an nnn-sphere is an (n−1)(n-1)(n−1)-sphere, the post conflates the mathematical definition of hyperspheres with physical cosmology. A 3-sphere is a higher-dimensional construct with no direct physical analogy to our observable universe's 3D spatial structure.
2. Undefined Hypersphere Radius
   The claim that the radius of a hypersphere is "undefined" is incorrect. In mathematics, the radius of any nnn-sphere is well-defined. The formula - Surface Area=2π2r3 for a 3-sphere demonstrates this. The reference to π.2r is a non-sequitur and applies only to circles, not hyperspheres.
3. Conflation of Time and Distance:
   Equating one second with 299,792,458 meters conflates units of time and space. This equivalence arises from the speed of light but doesn’t imply they are interchangeable in the way the post suggests. Using time as a "radius" is not physically meaningful without additional justification.
4. Universe’s Age as Radius:
   The claim that the age of the universe can be considered its "radius" is speculative and unfounded. The universe’s scale is described by the scale factor in cosmology, not simply by its age. Furthermore, the concept of the universe as a 2-sphere (implying a 3D surface in 4D space) is a speculative hypothesis, not established science.
5. Hubble Constant Calculation:
   Using 2πr to estimate the Hubble constant misrepresents its derivation. The Hubble constant is determined empirically by observing the redshifts of galaxies and their distances, not by geometric assumptions about the universe’s shape.
6. Black Hole Universe Hypothesis:
   While some theorists have explored the universe-as-a-black-hole idea, it remains speculative and lacks empirical support. The post leaps to conclusions without providing credible evidence for why this model would explain the observed expansion rate or galaxy formation.
7. Early Galaxies and Local Galaxies:
   Observations of high-redshift galaxies show significant differences in structure, size, and composition compared to local galaxies. The post’s claim contradicts well-established astronomical evidence.
8. Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology:
   The assertion that the ideas solve "quantum mechanic issues" is vague and unsupported. Quantum mechanics and general relativity remain distinct frameworks, and speculative cosmological models do not inherently solve quantum problems without a specific mechanism.

Your post makes speculative claims without rigorous support and conflates unrelated concepts. While it's great to explore new ideas, this proposal lacks coherence, scientific rigor, and empirical evidence. You need to clarify your assumptions, use proper cosmological terminology, and provide mathematical or observational backing before drawing such broad conclusions. D-