Big Ideas For Cosmology

[Dubbelosix]

1. What did my black hole particle model teach, other than it did not make sense to talk about an unchanging entropy in the ground state violating the temperature dependence of the system? Well, in my model, I chose a theoretical analogue-route to explaining how a micro black hole (whether stable of not) would have been very similar to the original conditions of the early phases of cosmology, as has been explained, several striking and strong arguments supports that our universe is very analogous to the ''dark stars.'' We used cosmology to say something about this black hole particle, but what does the black hole particle say about the early cosmology? Well, an interesting and curious interpretation is, if the black hole can only give up radiation in a series of discrete quantum processes, then there is no reason why the appearance of energy in the early universe too, would have been distributed in a series of discrete quantum processes. This brings me back to the work of Hoyle and Narlikar who had shown that a smooth distribution of matter as the universe expanded, would explain just as good the inflation theories which tried to explain the flatness problem. But, if there was a smooth expansion and a smooth distribution of matter from some source, then the universe would be much older than what we have estimated. Early scientists, including Einstein, made arguments that some supergalaxies should have taken much longer than the age of the universe to form. 

 

2. The second alternative is that a type of inflation did occur, but it isn't one that adheres to the Guth model which relies on a vacuum instability, but rather one that wishes to incorporate the full Poincare group into quantum cosmology. In such a case, the universe would have had a primordial spin and as shown by Hoyle and Narlikar, this rotation will have exponentially-decayed as it got ''large enough'' from a linear expansion. This linear expansion is really a phenomenon of the centrifugal force acting on the objects inside of the universe. Dark flow today, could be a remnant of this phenomenon. Investigating this, I realized you cannot just talk about the centrifugal force without the full classifications of the psuedo forces. For that derivation, you can follow it on my article at my blog:

 

https://gyroverse.quora.com/A-New-Spin-on-the-Universe-6

 

An immediate secondary consequence of spin is that torsion would be naturally incorporated into the model as well. You cannot have a spin and not have some sense of a torsion. Some have went as far to say frame dragging is a type of torsion, but that is not the general consensus since frame dragging involves a gravitational lock - but I am open to the idea the two phenomenon might be just different cases in different limits. Though this is just hindsight, I'll need to prove that statement some way at a later date. 

 

3. The consequences do not end there, because I need to explain where the background temperatures came from - my solution found a unique description that either added radiation in the early universe or could have been entirely responsible, which means major things in our understanding of the phases of the universe and nucleosynthesis would need to be abandoned from a certain point. I came to realize, any charged particles in an early universe subjected to a primordial rotation (and like all fluids, the dust inside of it couples to the direction of the motion of the angular momentum of the universe) and as a result [will(!)] give off a cyclotron radiation, as given in the following article:

 

https://gyroverse.quora.com/Cyclotron-Radiation-from-Primordial-Spin

 

In fact, this radiation later became a crucial idea in my model for correction to the Reyleigh-Plesset equation, in which attempts to explain sonoluminscence. 

 

https://theoryoflight.quora.com/Final-Blog-Post-for-now-On-Sonoluminscence

. 

Perhaps the most important implication of primordial rotation answers the antimatter problem but has the strange feature that the early universe did not obey relativity, meaning aspects of relativity are only emergent in late cosmology. The reason why it did not obey relativity was because the postulate of no preferred frames would not have existed if it had a rotary property. 

 

4. The Wheeler de Witt equation in my humble opinion is not wrong per se, but is describing the wrong condition for this phase of the universe, or indeed, any phase preceding the current one. So... why? The reason why is because the Wheeler de Witt equation is absent of cosmological time indicating that there are no internal changes in the universe. The only way this could be true is [if] there are no conservation law break downs. The most obvious conservation law in relativity that cannot be conserved because of the absence of this time, is the cosmic energy.  This is because the Noether theorem treats energy and time as conjugates and so to understand conservation, you need to have both energy and time to translate it properly. A serious issue also arises, from careful study of a Friedmann equation, which IS explicitly time-dependent related to the scale factor [math]a(t)[/math]. I think, we need to give up this idea of ''the disappearance of time'' or take it only as a very special case... similar to how the universe will end up in only radiation after all the supermassive black holes eventually radiate, only then do you lose the sense of time because there are no clocks in the form of matter. Alternatively, it may only be describing the radiation phase of the universe, and so the equation breaks down when electroweak symmetry breaking occurred and radiation transmutated into matter. Some unfiied field theories state that the universe arose in a quark-gluon plasma. But this is speculative because then you would have to say there was no such thing as a spontaneous symmetry breaking for matter, the condition itself would become fundamental, but I don't like those unification theories, I tend towards the idea that the universe started with light, not because of genesis ingrained into my mind, but because experiment seems to indicate this, which beings me to my last big idea I want to mention.

 

5. That all matter are but trapped forms of light. This would immediately indicate that light is more fundamental than mass and so was probably the progenitor of all the matter in the universe. All matter appears to be made of bound photons, this becomes a speculation from noticing that matter-antimatter collisions reduce the particles back to four gamma photons, two per particle with wavelengths equal to the energy of the electrons.Why should there be such a universal rule, that equally indicates a fundamental reduction to pure photon energy? In such a case, we'd have an early gravity-dominated universe, with a dense gas of photons. If my suggestion of rotation was right, then it may still undergo an inflation phase where the photons underwent a symmetry breaking. The symmetry breaking could be seen to be linked to the asymmetry of the preferred frame. It probably also allowed that matter to largely prefer matter over antimatter. As far as ''big idea section 5'' is going, there is a lot of speculation and will be a model I'll be working on, because I don't want to abandon many concepts of cosmology, I just want to adjust them in a more elegant way. There is after all, still truth behind evidence and cannot be ignored.