Content uploaded by Saeid Jafari
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Saeid Jafari on Jun 01, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Multiverse in Dynamic Equilibrium
Amrit S. Šorli
Bijective Physics Institute, Slovenija
sorli.bijective.physics@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6711-4844
Štefan Čelan
Scientific research centre Bistra, Slovenija
stefan.celan@bistra.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3646-1469
Saeid Jafari
Mathematical and Physical Science Foundation
4200 Slagelse, Denmark
saeidjafari@topositus.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5744-7354
Davide Fiscaletti
SpaceLife Institute, Italy
spacelife.institute@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5933-9354
Aram Bahroz Brzo
Department of Physics, College of Education,
University of Sulaimani, Kurdistan, Iraq
aram.brzo@univsul.edu.iq
Abstract
Big Bang cosmology is problematic because of the hypothetical beginning that is not in accord
with the conservation of energy. Further, it is based on interpretation of astronomical data that
is questionable. CMB is not direct proof of the existence of the recombination period in some
remote physical past. Cosmological redshift can be seen as the “tired light effect” proposed by
Zwicky. On the basis of direct reading of astronomical data, here we introduce a model of the
universe which predicts that in AGNs matter is transforming back into the elementary particles
in the form of huge jets that are throwing elementary particles into the intergalactic space and
so creating “fresh material” for new stars formation. This process occurring in AGNs, invoked
by our model, has no beginning, it is in permanent dynamic equilibrium.
Keywords: Multiverse, superfluid quantum space, CMB, cosmological redshift, AGN.
2
1. Introduction
In respect to the results of our research and Rovelli's research on time, we replaced the
space-time model with the superfluid quantum space model. “Superfluid quantum space (SQS)
has a general n-dimensional complex structure . Every point of has complex
coordinates:
iii yixz +=
(1).
(xi, yi) (i = 1, ... , n) is an ordered n-tuple of real numbers ((xi, yi)n); for the purpose of this
paper, we consider its subset 4 where all elementary particles are different structures of 4
SQS and have four complex dimensions zi “[1].
Figure 1: In SQS there is no temporal dimension.
In the cosmology model presented in this article, time does not run independently apart from
the change. Time is merely the duration of change. No change in would mean no time.
This model is in perfect accord with experimental physics where we measure with clocks the
duration of material change that is time. In this sense is timeless, or we say "time-
invariant” [1]. In this regard, Rovelli is right in saying that time is an illusion. “According to
theoretical physicist Carlo Rovelli, time is an illusion: Our naive perception of its flow doesn’t
correspond to physical reality. Indeed, as Rovelli argues in The Order of Time, much more is
illusory, including Isaac Newton’s picture of a universally ticking clock. Even Albert Einstein’s
relativistic space-time — an elastic manifold that contorts so that local times differ depending
3
on one’s relative speed or proximity to a mass — is just an effective simplification” [2]. Our
research confirms that time is the duration of material changes in universal space that is time-
invariant [1,3]. This is an important understanding for cosmology progress.
Time as duration also solves the “four-vector” puzzle. In special relativity, the four-
vector is introduced in order to unify space-time coordinates x, y, z, and t into a single entity.
The length of this four-vector, called the space-time interval, is shown to be invariant, which
means the same for all observers: , where as a temporal coordinate is
. The so-called “temporal coordinate” is a product of time t as the duration of motion
and light speed c. The four-vector can be positive or negative and depends on the direction of
motion in future or in past:
(2).
where is proper time [4].
The idea of motion into past or into future is questionable because it leads to the logical
inconsistency where the sum of positive four-vector and negative four-vector is zero:
(3) [4].
This means that the value of the space-time interval in the Minkowski manifold from A to B
and back from B to A is zero which seems wrong. The idea that a given physical object can
move in the future or in the past will be re-examined. In experimental physics, we measure
with clocks the duration of motion in space. We do not have any experimental evidence that a
given physical object is moving in the direction from the past towards the future. In space
there is no past, and there is no future. A given physical object can move only in a space
and not in time that is the duration of motion. The value of the four-vector
in a space is always positive. There is no negative time and the negative four-vector
puzzle is solved.
In the 20th century, the idea of moving back in time was widely accepted. Feynman has
defined positron as the electron that is moving backward in time [5]. Time was meant to be the
physical reality in which elementary particles move; we do not have a single data that would
support this idea. With clocks we measure the duration of motion in space, it is time to abandon
4
the idea of time being the 4th dimension of space. Instead, we developed a space where time
is the duration of change [1].
Gödel development of Einstein field equations of general relativity shows that they lead
to the contradiction, namely, one could move back in time and kill his grandfather and so he
could not be born. By 1949, Gödel had produced a remarkable proof: “In any universe
described by the Theory of Relativity, time cannot exist.” He understood that his development
of General Relativity proves that time has no physical existence and nobody can travel in time.
Still today he is misunderstood by thinking that his work is proving that time travel is possible
[6]. Nobody can travel in time because time is not 4th dimension of universal space. The
introduction of the SQS as the fundamental arena of the universe where time is the duration
of motion resolves the contradiction of “motion in time” and is an important element of
cosmology progress.
In this paper our aim is to develop a model of universe in dynamic equilibrium inside
the SQS intended as the fundamental arena. In chapter 2 we will introduce our explanation
of cosmological redshift in terms of the fluctuations of the energy density of SQS. In chapter
3 we will mention some unsolved issues of the standard inflation model and how our model
can open interesting perspectives of treatment of these issues. In chapter 4 we will mention
some unsolved questions of the Hubble law in the context of the expanding universe paradigm.
In chapter 5 we will analyse how our model allows to explain the curvature of space and dark
energy. In chapter 6 we will provide our interpretation of the cosmic microwave radiation
(CMB). In chapter 7 and 8 we will see some important problems regarding Big Bang
cosmology. Finally, in chapter 9, in order to introduce new perspectives of solution of the
various problems of cosmology mentioned in this paper, we will suggest our model of timeless
multiverse in dynamic equilibrium.
2. Cosmological redshift is “tired” light effect
The redshift of the light coming from distant galaxies is today understood as the
experimental proof of the universal space expansion. We do not have a theoretical model with
mathematical evaluations in scientific literature that exactly predict how the light would behave
when moving in the opposite direction of expanding space. This is a serious inconvenience and
a puzzle that needs to be solved. The Doppler effect is observed on Earth’s surface and Earth
is moving around the Sun in the stationary space.
5
Recent research suggests that the SQS has the value of Planck energy density
[1,7,8]. The gravitational constant G can be expressed with Planck energy density and
Planck time as:
. If the universe would expand, the energy density of the SQS
would diminish and consequently the gravitational constant would increase. The gravitational
constant was measured first back in 1798 by Henry Cavendish. Since then, the value of
gravitational constant is stable, meaning that the density of SQS is also stable. This is
suggesting that the universe is not expanding.
Not only the gravitational constant, also the magnetic permeability and the electric
permittivity of the SQS are defined by its energy density. The increase and decrease of
the energy density of the SQS would be a cause for the change of magnetic permeability
and electric permittivity and would consequently change the light speed. This last was
exactly measured by English astronomer James Bradley back in 1729 [9]. The constancy of ,
and light speed is suggesting that the energy density of the SQS is constant and that
universe is not expanding.
Stephen Hawking has predicted that the universe started by the mathematical point [10].
Back in 2014, NASA has measured with the 0,4% of error that the universal space has
Euclidean shape by measurement of the sum of angles between three stellar objects and getting
180°: “Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based
experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the
brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus, the universe was known to be flat to within
about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very
high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a
0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the
Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly
conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe” [11].
This means that the universal space can be considered infinite in its volume. On the question
how a mathematical point could extend into infinite space of the universe has no answer; we
know in mathematics that the mathematical point is dimensionless and cannot be transformed
into a given volume.
In FLWR metrics the density parameter Ω ultimately governs whether the curvature is:
negative (Ω < 1), positive (Ω > 1), flat (Ω = 1). When density parameter is Ω is 1 in the FLWR
metrics universal space has Euclidean shape. In our model, the value 1 of the density parameter
Ω is related to the Planck energy density of intergalactic space [1]. In every single point of the
6
universal space, the value of the density parameter Ω is unchanged because in the centre of a
given physical object the energy density of superfluid quantum space - SQS is diminishing
exactly for the amount of its mass m and energy E accordingly to the equation below:
(4) [1],
where ρEmin is the energy density of the SQS in the centre of the physical object and V is the
volume of the object. This means that the density parameter Ω has the same value in the centre
of a black hole and in the intergalactic space.
Considering that density parameter Ω is 1, the only possible future scenario of the
universe is Big Rip where all massive objects will have been ripped apart [12]. In Big Bang
cosmology we have to invoke “phantom” moments: According to Hawking universe has started
from mathematical point and according to Big Rip scenario galaxies will be ripped apart. The
cosmology model presented in this article has no such “phantom” moments, it is based only on
astronomical data.
We have a plausible explanation of cosmological redshift. When light is coming to us
from remote galaxies, it moves against the space fluctuations which are carrying gravity force.
SQS fluctuations are flowing from outer interstellar space where SQS has maximum
energy density towards lower energy density of SQS in the centre of stellar objects; these
SQS fluctuations are carrying gravity force [1,7,8]. Light from distant galaxies is moving in
the opposite direction of these space fluctuation and is that why losing some of its energy. The
result is the cosmological redshift. Swiss astronomer Zwicky has named this effect “tired light
effect” [13], see Figure 2.
Figure 2: Light is losing some of its energy when moving
in the opposite direction of the space fluctuations that carry gravity.
7
Theory of vector gravity is a model that supports the reinterpretation of gravitational redshift:
“Similarly to general relativity, vector gravity postulates that the gravitational field is coupled
to matter through a metric tensor which is, however, not an independent variable but rather
a functional of the vector gravitational field. In particular, action for a point particle with mass
m moving in the gravitational field reads:
(5)
where is the speed of light. Action (5) has the same form as in general relativity, however,
the tensor gravitational field of general relativity is now replaced with the equivalent metric
( is a tensor under general coordinate transformations)” [14].
Our model provides the physical origin of vector gravity that is in the SQS quantum
fluctuations that are directed from the higher energy density of SQS towards the lover
density of SQS. These fluctuations interact with photons to diminish their frequency, which
is referred to as ‘gravitational redshift.’ When light from distant galaxies reaches the Earth, its
frequency is lower. On its path to Earth, light loses some of its energy because it is moving
against the SQS fluctuations that points toward the direction of galaxies, so that
EEE galaxyphotonEarthphoton −= ..
(6),
where Ephoton.galaxy is the energy of the photon at the galaxy, Ephoton.Earth is the energy of the
arrived photon at the Earth, and E is the loss of energy due to the fluctuations of the SQS,
Δν (7),
where h is Planck’s constant and
is the decrease of the photon frequency due to SQS
fluctuations (Figure 2) [15].
Because of different densities of the SQS, the frequency of light also changes when
moving from the source to the receiver above the Earth’s surface. In a Harvard University
experiment, a source on the Earth’s surface and a receiver at the height of 22,5 meters were
positioned, as illustrated in Figure 3.
8
Figure 3. The redshift of light moving from the Earth’s surface upwards.
The Mössbauer effect was used to measure the difference between y-ray emission and
absorption frequencies at each end of the experiment. The measurement accuracy was
15
10/−
, which shows a change of light frequency as
(8),
where M and R are the mass and radius of the Earth, respectively [16].
In our approach, Equation (8) may be conveniently rewritten by substituting the Earth mass
with the
from Equation (4) as:
h (9),
which can be expressed as:
h
h (10).
Equation (10) confirms that gravitational redshift at Mössbauer effect depends on the minimal
energy density of the SQS in the Earth’s centre.
SQS quantum fluctuation in distant galaxies in the direction from (outer
space) towards (centre of galaxy) are the physical origin of so called “tired light” model
of astronomer Fritz Zwicky. What we call “cosmological redshift” is “tired light effect”.
9
Recent research is confirming that cosmological redshift has its origin in the
gravitational field of galaxies from which light is reaching the Earth. When light is moving
from the galaxy in the opposite direction of gravity it has a minimal diminishment of velocity.
This causes the loss of frequency and consequently the redshift effect [17].
3. NASA's discovery means the end of expansion model of the universe and the end
of inflation model
NASA has measured back in 2014 that universal space is flat, it has a Euclidean shape
[11]. In FLWR metric the density parameter Ω ultimately governs whether the curvature is:
negative (Ω < 0), positive (Ω > 0), flat (Ω = 0). When the density parameter is Ω is 1 in the
FLWR metric universal space has a Euclidean shape and FLWR metrics predict that such a
space can expand. This is against the metrics of Euclidean geometry where the distance
between two points is always constant. In an n-dimensional Euclidean space the distance
between point and point is calculated accordingly:
(11).
We do not have any possibility in the frame of Euclidean geometry that the distance would
be changed. We cannot expand or shrink Euclidean space. This means that such a space is
homogeneous and isotropic. But in spherical geometry or hyperbolic geometry, the situation is
different. For example, in a spherical geometry considered as a model for universe, all relative
distances increase at a rate proportional to their magnitudes. When using spherical geometry
universe is closed. In the hyperbolic case which is an open universe, when the radial coordinate
increases away from the origin, the circumferences increase more rapidly with proper radius.
One can observe the differences between these three types of spaces from the following:
(12)
1. Flat space: k=0
2. Spherical space: k > 0
3. Hyperbolic space: k < 0.
10
Eq. (12) confirms that when , the distance cannot increase or decrease. The idea that
universal space has been inflating immediately after the hypothetical explosion is inspired by
the fact that in mathematics, we can increase the radius of the Riemann manifold, and its
volume will increase. We have shown in the previous section that we cannot apply Riemann
geometry in cosmology because universal space has a Euclidean shape and cannot expand. We
do not have a single direct measurement that would prove that universal space is expanding.
The idea that universal space could expand has no mathematical basis and has no support in
astronomical observations. We have shown in the previous section that the Mössbauer effect
is a direct proof of the cosmological gravitational redshift.
Back in 2011 Steinhardt published an article in Scientific American questioning if
inflation is a flawed model: “Is the theory at the heart of modern cosmology deeply flawed?”
[18]. In his article he did not give final conclusions. He pointed out that the inflation model has
some unbridgeable problems that seems are no solvable.
Back in 2017 Steinhardt published together with Anna Ijjas and Abraham Loeb another
article in Scientific American titled “Cosmic Inflation Theory Faces Challenges - The latest
astrophysical measurements, combined with theoretical problems, cast doubt on the long-
cherished inflationary theory of the early cosmos and suggest we need new ideas”. The three
authors question the dominant idea of the inflation, the fact that the early cosmos underwent
an extremely rapid expansion, suggesting the necessity to consider other scenarios, and in
particular the possibility that our universe began with a bounce from a previously contracting
cosmos. Their article has opened a feverish debate among world-leading cosmologists. For
example, Cornellussen writes in a 2017 Physics Today paper: “The trio’s aggressive
reappraisal of a scientific consensus inspired an energetic rebuttal, also in Scientific American,
from 33 prominent physicists, including four Nobel laureates” [19].
We are proposing in this article a new way of solving the problems of the inflation
model and also other problems of Big Bang cosmology. We suggest here a cosmological model
that will be based on the direct reading of obtained data. Mössbauer effect is directly observed
and measured. It confirms that light when moving in the opposite direction of gravity force
diminishes its frequency. This is the so-called “gravitational redshift”. Cosmological redshift
has the same physical origin. When light is pulling out of the strong gravitational fields of
distant galaxies their frequency diminishes. This is the manner in which in our model the idea
of inflation can be avoided and abandoned. According to our model, universal space is flat, of
Euclid nature, and cannot expand; in the light of the Mössbauer effect, when light moves in the
opposite direction of the gravitational fields of galaxies their frequencies diminishes.
11
Alan Guth’s view is that universe run in some physical time. With the Big Bang this
physical time has entered into existence. How this has happened we do not know yet: “There
is much evidence that at earlier times the universe underwent inflation, but the details of how
and when inflation happened are still far from certain. There is even more uncertainty about
what happened before inflation, and how inflation began. I will describe the possibility of
“eternal” inflation, which proposes that our universe evolved from an infinite tree of
inflationary spacetime. Most likely, however, inflation can be eternal only into the future, but
still must have a beginning [20]. In the same article Guth has continued: “Since inflation is
eternal into the future, it is natural to ask if it might also be eternal into the past. The explicit
models that have been constructed are eternal only into the future and not into the past, but that
does not show whether or not is possible for inflation to be eternal into the past” [20]. Guth
sees universe running in some physical time that we show is non-existent. His speculations
about eternal inflation into future and possible eternal inflation from the past are strictly
theoretical and have no experimental evidence.
Guth and the co-authors admitted that inflation model is not self-consistent: “Thus
inflationary models require physics other than inflation to describe the past boundary of the
inflating region of spacetime” [21]. Cosmology model presented in this article is self-
consistent.
Guth’ way of incorporating gravity in his inflation model is not convincing: “The
expansion of the universe may be described by introducing a time-dependent “scale factor,”
, with the separation between any two objects in the universe being proportional to .
Einstein’s equations prescribe how this scale factor will evolve over time, . The rate of
acceleration is proportional to the density of mass-energy in the universe, , plus three times
its pressure,
where is Newton’s gravitational constant (and we use
units for which the speed of light ). The minus sign is important: ordinary matter under
ordinary circumstances has both positive mass-energy density and positive (or zero) pressure,
so that . In this case, gravity acts as we would expect it to: All of the matter in
the universe tends to attract all of the other matter, causing the expansion of the universe as a
whole to slow down” [22]. By adding the negative mathematical sign in the formula gravity in
the universe will not change. In our model gravity cannot be seen as positive or negative in the
mathematical sense. Gravity is the result of the diminished energy density of SQS in the
centre of a given physical object [1,7,8].
12
The radius of the mapped universe measured on the basis of astronomic observations is
about . The age of the universe is about . According to these data the
universe should expand with a velocity of , that is about light speed to
reach the mapped size of the universe [23]. The idea that the universe could expand with the
average velocity of a 3,3-time of light speed seems unacceptable; we do not have a single theory
in physics that would predict such a velocity. The discrepancy between the measured mapped
universe and the hypothetical size and expansion of the universe is a big unresolved question
of the Big Bang cosmology model.
4. Hubble law and Doppler effect in an expanding space
Hubble law states that acceleration of the universe increases by the distance:
D (13),
where is the velocity typically expressed in , is Hubble constant and is the
distance of the galaxy from the observer measured in megaparsecs (Mpc). One Mpc is
light-years. Velocity of the expansion is defined on the basis of the redshift of a
given galaxy. Universal space is expanding and so distances to the galaxies are increasing. The
velocity of the galaxies is determined by their redshift that occurs because of Doppler effect.
We have shown in section 2 that there is no appropriate mathematical model existing that would
describe the Doppler effect in an expanding space. Equation of the Doppler effect is following:
(14),
is observed frequency, is emitted frequency, is the speed of receiver relative to the
medium, is the light speed, and is the speed of the source relative to the medium. Eq. (10)
is valid when the medium is at rest. Doppler effect is observed only in the stationary space
where electric primitivity and magnetic permeability of space that define light speed are
unchanged. We do not know how the Doppler effect would work in an expanding space where
the energy density of the SQS would diminish and electromagnetic properties of space
would be changed. Masanori research confirms that gravity influences the electromagnetic
properties of space: “It is known that the speed of light depends on the gravitational potential.
13
In the gravitational fields, the speed of light becomes slow, and time dilation occurs. In this
discussion, the permittivity and permeability of free space are assumed to depend on gravity
and are variable” [24]. Applying the Doppler effect in Hubble law without knowing how the
expansion of the universe changes electromagnetic properties of expanding space seems
unacceptable.
Back in 2019, NASA has reported on universe expansion: “The new estimate of the
Hubble constant is 74 kilometers (46 miles) per second per megaparsec. This means that for
every 3.3 million light-years farther away a galaxy is from us, it appears to be moving 74
kilometers (46 miles) per second faster, because of the expansion of the universe. The number
indicates that the universe is expanding at a 9% faster rate than the prediction of 67 kilometers
(41.6 miles) per second per megaparsec, which comes from Planck's observations of the early
universe, coupled with our present understanding of the universe” [25].
In section 3. we calculated the average velocity of the universe expansion that is
according to the size of the mapped universe and age of the universe 3.3-time of light speed
which yield . Hubble constant is measured to be 74 kilometers per second
which yield . According to the value of the Hubble constant universe should be
much smaller. This is the second weak point of Hubble law.
Hubble law predicts the existence of the Hubble sphere, a spherical region of the
observable universe beyond which objects recede at a rate greater than the speed of light due
to the expansion of the universe [26]. How galaxies could have velocity higher than light speed
is also an unanswered question of Hubble law. Research published in 2013 has confirmed that
photons form matter [27]. This means that every physical object accelerated to the light speed
would turn into light. No physical object can move with light speed. Only photons can move
with light speed. The Hubble sphere model is suggesting that beyond the Hubble sphere there
are only photons in the universe and that they move faster than light speed. This seems
unacceptable.
Measurements of the Hubble constant based on the astrophysics of stars and CMB have
a 10% of the discrepancy: “It is certainly worth noting that the local measurement of is
based on the astrophysics of stars, and the CMB results are based on the physics of the early
universe: the results are entirely independent of each other. 13.8 billion years of evolution of
the universe has occurred since the surface of last scattering of the CMB and the present day,
and yet the two measures agree to within 10%. Viewed from a historical perspective, the
agreement is actually rather remarkable” [28]. Wendy L. Freedman is pointing out that this
14
discrepancy is signalling the cosmology beyond the standard model: “Over the past 15 years,
measurements of the fluctuations in the temperature of the remnant radiation from the Big Bang
have provided a relatively new means of estimating the value of the Hubble constant. This very
different approach has led us to an interesting crossroads, yielding a lower derived value of
(see Figure 1). If this discrepancy persists in the face of newer and higher precision and
accuracy data, it may be signaling that there is new physics to be discovered beyond the current
standard model of cosmology” [28].
Lucas Lombriser has tried to solve this discrepancy with the proposal of a higher local
density of matter: “A significant tension has become manifest between the current expansion
rate of our Universe measured from the cosmic microwave background by the Planck satellite
and from local distance probes, which has prompted for interpretations of that as evidence of
new physics. Within conventional cosmology a likely source of this discrepancy is identified
here as a matter density fluctuation around the cosmic average of the 40 Mpc environment in
which the calibration of Supernovae Type Ia separations with Cepheids and nearby absolute
distance anchors is performed” [29]. Lucas Lombriser is applying in his calculations FLWR
metrics as that the cosmic bubble of the 40 Mpc environment would be a universe apart. This
seems unacceptable, you cannot take a part of the universe out of the context and calculate the
local expansion rate. It makes no sense; if we imagine Big Bang as an initial explosion there
is no way according to the known physics that some parts of the explosion would have a
different rate of expansion. L. Freedman's proposal of searching beyond Big Bang cosmology
deserves serious consideration.
5. Super-fluid quantum space, dark energy and dark matter
Super-fluid four-dimensional complex quantum space SQS is the primordial energy
of the universe. According to the law of energy conservation, this energy cannot be created and
cannot be destroyed. Every physical object with the mass is diminishing the energy density
of SQS in its centre exactly for the amount of its energy . Variable energy density of 4SQS
is generating inertial mass and gravitational mass of a given physical object: “From the
macro to the microscale, it holds that a given physical object is interacting with the 4SQS in
which is existing; the result of this interaction are the inertial mass mi and the gravitational mass
mg:
15
(15) [1].
The inertial mass of a given physical object is not its rest mass, it is the result of the interaction
of rest mass with the 4SQS [1]. Gravity force between two physical objects is as follows:
(16),
where is the inertial mass of the first object and is the inertial mass of the second
object:
Figure 4: Gravity for acts from outer space towards the centre of physical objects
Higher pressure of outer 4SQS is pushing together physical objects. 4SQS is the “unknown
fluid” of the universe. It cannot have negative pressure as suggested in recent research: “This
acceleration in the universe may driven by an exotic type of unknown fluid that have positive
energy density and huge negative pressure. This fluid is usually known as Dark Enegry (DE)
but its nature is still unknown. The most suitable candidate of this DE is the Λ. However, there
is a huge dissimilarity in the value of Λ predicted by observations and particle physics ground
that leads tuning problem” [30]. Negative pressure of the “unknown fluid” is a theoretical
proposal that was never observed in experimental physics and cannot be taken as a stable
ground to build cosmology.
Dark energy, also named “unknown fluid is 68% of the energy in the universe. About
5% of the energy in the universe is in the form of visible matter, while about 27% is in the form
of dark matter and about 68% of the energy of the universe is in the form of dark energy [31].
Since the 1980s, the dominant paradigm for the nature of dark matter has been that of the
weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) [32].
16
In our model, the energy of the SQS is the dark energy; the idea that universal space
is empty and dark energy is hidden somewhere in the space seems wrong. SQS model offers
the solution for the discrepancy between measured and theoretically valued cosmological
constant: “The measured value of cosmological constant Λ = 5.96 · 10-27 kg/m3 is different
from its calculated value following the Planck metrics for the magnitude of 10123: this
discrepancy is an unsolved subject of physics for decades [33]. Regarding the suggested energy
density of space proposed in this article, we are defending our proposal by the fact that the
gravitational constant G is obtained by measurement and is expressed by the Planck energy
density and the Planck time tP as:
(17).
This means that the Planck energy density reflects the real energy density of a 4-D
universal space. In the absence of stellar objects, the energy density of the universal space has
a value of Planck energy density which is “[1]. Einstein had
proposed that universal space is four-dimensional. In his vision time is the 4th dimension of
space. In our model also 4th dimension is spatial, time is the duration of the change in space.
We are introducing the variable energy density of the four-dimensional superfluid quantum
space that is proportional to the amount of matter accordingly to Eq. (4) that represents the
mass-energy equivalence principle extension on the superfluid quantum space.
6. CMB is the radiation of the existent universal space
We propose also that CMB should not be interpreted as a proof of recombination period.
Astronomical observations confirm that the universal space is radiating uniform CMB radiation
[34]. The Big Bang model suggests that the CMB radiation is the relic radiation from some
remote physical past. The universal space is timeless; no signal can move through some
hypothetical physical time; all signals move in the timeless space. The idea that CMB is
radiation from some remote physical time is not falsifiable and should be abandoned in the
name of cosmology progress. CMB has its source in present time-invariant universal space.
Experimental physics is confirming a given signal we can only reach from the existent physical
source, and the remote physical past is physically non-existent. Any kind of radiation must
have a physical source; the remote past event cannot be this physical source. The proposal that
17
the CMB signal is relic radiation that was created in some remote physical past and is still
present is an ad-hoc proposal that was never confirmed by an experiment. The discovery of
CMB absolutely does not prove the existence of a recombination period that should be existing
around 380000 years after some hypothetical Big Bang. The scientific fact on the basis of
observations is that CMB is the radiation of existent universal space that has its physical origin
in SQS that is timeless. The CMB has a thermal black body spectrum at a temperature of
[35].
7. Big Bang cosmology and Einstein’s steady-state cosmology have no answer about
matter creation
Alan Gut hypothesis is that the energy of gravity and that of matter have been
multiplying in inflation period. The energy of gravity Eg is negative, the energy of matter Em is
positive, their sum is zero and in inflation on the contrary they multiply [36]. We can describe
his idea mathematically as follows:
0)( =−+ gm EnEn
(18).
Firstly, we never observed negative gravitational energy. Secondly, we never observed that
energies are multiplying out of nothing. Gut’s idea is against the first law of thermodynamics
and is not bijective. There is no logical answer also about where both energies came into
existence in the hypothetical inflation. Eq. (14) is mathematically right, but it does not fulfil
the test of bijectivity, meaning that it does not correspond to some real process in physical
world. The Big Bang model is not falsifiable.
The model of the universe presented in this article is based only on the obtained
experimental data, is falsifiable. There are no theoretical speculations as in the case of the Big
Bang model. The cosmology model presented in this article is based only on direct reading of
experimental data. Thinking that the gravitational energy could be negative is logically
inconsistent, because we never observed to date positive or negative energy in the universe.
We know that there are precise conventions on the sign of energy, conventions adopted in all
areas of physics, such as thermodynamics (absorbed energy = positive; energy released energy
= negative). But these are adopted conventions, no one has ever measured that energy has an
associated mathematical sign. This is also in line with the principle of bijectivity introduced in
the article. Also, the idea that the energy of the universe is multiplying in the hypothetical
18
inflation is logically inconsistent, because we have no experimental evidence that energy can
get multiplied. The inflation is against the first law of thermodynamics.
In the past century, gravity was understood as the force produced directly by the matter,
the idea was that universe must be finite. We can read in the article of Sir James Jeans in Nature
back in 1943: “If, however, the distribution is uniform throughout the whole of space, then
space must be finite; otherwise, it would contain an infinite amount of matter, and the
gravitational force from this would be infinite, which is contrary to the fact” [37].
NASA has measured that the universe has Euclidean shape and is infinite [11]. The idea
of SQS being infinite does not mean that gravity should be infinite, as suggested by Sir
James Jeans. Considering universal space is infinite there is no gravity force between the stellar
objects that are on the infinite distance.
The energy of the infinite universe in the form of matter Em and in the form of superfluid
quantum space energy ESQS is infinite:
(19).
The human mind can only imagine a finite amount of matter and a finite amount of energy and
finite space which is not the case with the universe. The universe is infinite by means of matter,
energy, and volume. That’s why is opportune we study the universe that is at a finite distance
and we predict that the rest of the unobservable universe on the infinite distance is behaving in
the same way as our observable universe.
Mass of every physical object in the universe diminishes the energy density of space,
the variable energy density of space is carrying gravity that is the fundamental force of the
universal dynamics. Defining gravitational energy negative, as done by Hawking and Guth, is
questionable; energy is not positive, it is not negative, energy simply is, it cannot be created
and it cannot be destroyed, it transforms continuously.
Einstein has proposed on his steady—state theory of the universe that matter is
continuously created out of the universal space: “In the final part of the manuscript, Einstein
proposes a physical mechanism to allow the density of matter remain constant in a universe of
expanding radius - namely, the continuous formation of matter from empty space: “If one
considers a physically bounded volume, particles of matter will be continually leaving it. For
the density to remain constant, new particles of matter must be continually formed within that
volume from space” [38]. How the matter is formed out of space Einstein did not explain. Both,
19
Hawking’s and Einstein’s solution for how matter appears in the universe are pure theoretical
speculations. In our model appearance of matter in the universe is not questionable. In AGNs’
matter is constantly disintegrating in elementary particles that are fresh energy for matter
formation.
8. Multiverse is in permanent dynamic equilibrium
SQS is multidimensional. All elementary particles are different structures of a
SQS [1]. Physical objects are made out of atoms that are three-dimensional. Different layers
of SQS are coexisting, they are interwoven. In our view of the multiverse theory, we do not
have some parallel universes that are coexisting in some unexplainable way. The universe we
perceive and observe is a multiverse. We can only perceive and measure the 3D and the 4D
realms of the multiverse. Higher dimensions are not reachable with apparatuses but this does
not mean that they are non-existent. The idea of the multiverse or “multiple universes” is
present in the human culture for ages: “Widely propounded in cosmology, physics, astronomy
and hypothesized in philosophical and religious literature, the concept of multiple universes
under the names of multiverse, parallel universes, quantum universes or interpenetrating
dimensions has been under the debate among the prominent physicists since middle ages” [39].
5D and higher dimensionalities of SQS represent the mathematical model that can describe
“hidden variables” of Einstein: “Albert Einstein never liked some of the counterintuitive
predictions of quantum theory, arguing instead that there was a further, hidden layer to reality
it failed to describe” [40], and “implicate order” of David Bohm [41].
In the cosmology model proposed in this article the energy density of SQS in
interstellar space has a value of Planck energy density . Every stellar
object is diminishing energy density of the 4th dimension of SQS in its centre exactly for the
amount of its mass m and energy E accordingly to the Eq. (3). Let’s see the values of SQS
energy density in the centre of some stellar objects on the table below [5]:
Table 1. Comparation values of the energy density of space with respect to the centre of
indicated objects.
Centre of objects
Black hole with mass of the Sun
Earth
20
Moon
Sun
In the centre of a black hole with the mass of the Sun and corresponded Schwarzschild radius
, the minimal energy density of SQS is for the order of lower than in
the centre of the Sun. Because of this special physical circumstance atoms become unstable. In
the huge black holes in the centre of AGNs matter is falling apart into elementary particles that
form jets. Black holes in the centre of galaxies are throwing these jets into intergalactic space.
These jets are fresh energy for new stars formation; black holes are rejuvenating systems of the
universe [8]. AGNs in the centres of galaxies are keeping entropy of the universe constant:
“old” matter is transformed into “fresh” energy in the form of elementary particles (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Energy circulation in the universe is permanent.
This process did not start and will never end, it is in permanent dynamic equilibrium. There
was no creation of the energy of the universe and there will be no destruction of the energy.
An increase of matter entropy in the universe is only a partial process that does not influence
the total entropy of the universe that is constant. In AGN-s the universe is rejuvenating itself.
9. Big Bang cosmology model timeline seems wrong
There is a strong astronomical evidence that the star HD 140283 has an age of 14.27
billion years [42] that is a new difficulty for Big Bang model according to which the age of the
universe is calculated by about 13.7 billion years. This astronomical observation is another
puzzle Big Bang cosmology cannot solve.
21
The next problem of the existing big bang timeline is the formation of the galaxies in
the early universe, the so-called “early galaxies problem”. Several galaxies with such a high
redshift are discovered that they should be formed earlier as the big bang model is predicting:
“We have shown that recent observations of high-redshift galaxies are inconsistent with current
theoretical models of galactic assembly. As a general principle, when theory and observation
disagree, it is historically best to believe the observational result. However, in this case the
observations also rely on untested theoretical assumptions about stellar evolution. Thus,
something is wrong, but what?” [43]. We suggest in our article that the theoretical assumption
of the universe starting with some hypothetical big bang seems wrong.
The next problem of the existing big bang timeline is the discovery of a giant arch
behind galaxy cluster IDCS J1426.5+3508 that should accordingly to the big bang cosmology
should not exists: “Very simply, the arc we have discovered behind IDCS J1426.5+3508 is not
predicted to exis” [44]. In our cosmological model universe has no “timeline”. All stellar
objects and formations that we observe do not pose any problem.
Comparing with the big bang cosmology our cosmological model is incorporating the
existence of methuselah star HD 140283, the existence of giant arch behind galaxy cluster
IDCS J1426.5+3508 and is solving the “early galaxy problem”. We developed a cosmology
model without the beginning of the universe, the problem of creation is solved. Penrose and
Gurzadyan's “Conformal cyclic cosmology” (CCC) model also suggest that the universe is non-
created, eternal, and in the permanent cyclic transformation [45]. CCC cosmology is accepting
the inflation period that the “CPT – Symmetric universe” model is denying. CPT model
predicts that before the big explosion there was an anti-universe in some negative time [46].
We categorically exclude that universe could exist in some negative time or could exist in some
positive time. CCC cosmology model and CPT – Symmetric universe model weak points are
that both models predict some events in the past that were never observed directly, their
existence is questionable. Multiverse in dynamic equilibrium (MDE) is advanced in the sense
it is based only on astronomical observations; it has no theoretical speculations about some
past events in some remote physical past. MDE model is based on the astronomical
observations of the existing observable universe. In MDE model atoms are 3D structures
composed out of elementary particles that are different 4D structures of SQS [1]. 5% of the
energy in the universe is in the form of matter that is 3D and 95% is in the form of 4D and
higher dimensional layers of SQS; dark energy and represent about 68% of the energy of the
universe, the weakly interacting massive particle (WIMP) that represent around 27% of the
energy of the universe [32]. In an MDE model, the proportion (5% - 27% - 68%) between
22
ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy that is the energy is more or less constant.
A multiverse is a dynamic system in permanent equilibrium. The transformation of mater into
elementary particles in the centre of AGNs is permanent; the multiverse is continuously
recreating itself. Multiverse is non-created and eternal.
10. Conclusions
Our research shows that direct reading of CMB means the end of Big Bang cosmology.
Cosmological redshift has a valuable interpretation in a tired light effect. Big Bang cosmology
does not explain the origin of energy at the moment of creation. On the other hand, the
cosmology model presented in this article is without theoretical speculations and is based only
on astronomical data.
References:
1. Šorli, A.S. & Čelan Š. Superfluid quantum space as the unified field theory, Reports in
Advances of Physical Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 3 (2020) 2050007,
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2424942420500073 (2021)
2. Andrew Jaffe, The Illusion of Time, Nature, Nature 556, 304-305 (2018).
3. Fiscaletti, D., Sorli, A. Perspectives of the Numerical Order of Material Changes in Timeless
Approaches in Physics. Found Phys 45, 105–133 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-014-
9840-y.
4. Jose M. Ripalda, Time reversal and negative energies in general relativity (2010)
arXiv:gr-qc/9906012
5. Feynman, Richard (1949). "The Theory of Positrons". Physical Review. 76 (6): 749–759.
6. Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Tadej Gregl, New insights into Gödel's universe without
time, Physics Essays, Volume 26: Pages 113-115 (2013) 10.4006/0836-1398-26.1.113.
7. Fiscaletti, D., & Šorli, A.S., Quantum Relativity: Variable Energy Density of Quantum Vacuum
as the Origin of Mass, Gravity and the Quantum Behaviour, Ukrainian Journal of Phys-
ics, 63(7), 623 (2018). https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe63.7.623.
8. Amrit S. Sorli, Stefan Čelan, Schwarzschild energy density of superfluid quantum space and
mechanism of AGNs’ jets, Advanced Studies in Theoretical Physics, Vol. 15, no. 1, 9-17.
(2021) https://doi.org/10.12988/astp.2021.91506.
9. Hirshfeld, Alan (2001). Parallax: The Race to Measure the Cosmos. New York: Henry
Holt. ISBN 978-0-8050-7133-7.
10. Hartle, J.B., and Hawking, S.W. Wave function of the Universe. Phys. Rev. D, 28, 2960
(1983). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.28.2960.
11. NASA. https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html (2014).
23
12. Roshina Nandra, Anthony N. Lasenby, Michael P. Hobson, The effect of an expanding
universe on massive objects, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume
422, Issue 4, June 2012, Pages 2945–2959, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.20617.x
13. Zwicky, F. On the Redshift of Spectral Lines Through Interstellar Space, Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 15(10), 773-779
(1929). doi:10.1073/pnas.15.10.773. PMC 522555
14. Anatoly A. Svidzinsky, Simplified equations for gravitational field in the vector theory of
gravity and new insights into dark energy, Physics of the Dark Universe, Volume 25, 100321
(2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2019.100321.
15. Šorli A., Čelan Š., Advances of Relativity Theory, Physics Essays, Vol 34: Pages 201-210
(2021) http://dx.doi.org/10.4006/0836-1398-34.2.201
16. Puthoff H.E., Polarizable-Vacuum (PZ) presentation of general relativity, Found.Phys. 32,
927-943. (2002). 10.1023/A:1016011413407.
17. Tiguntsev S.G., A HYPOTHESIS ABOUT THE PREDOMINANTLY GRAVITATIONAL
NATURE OF REDSHIFT IN THE ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRA OF SPACE
OBJECTS, The Coomplex Systems, 1 (11), (2021), pp. 43-57, 10.21203/rs.3.rs-126341/v2
18. Steinhardt, Paul J. (2011). "The inflation debate: Is the theory at the heart of modern
cosmology deeply flawed?". Scientific American. 304 (4): 18
25. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0411-36.
19. Steven T. Corneliussen, Cosmic inflation debate bleeds into popular science media, Physics
Today, 5 June (2017) DOI:10.1063/PT.6.3.20170605a.
20. Alan Guth, Time since the beginning (2003) https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0301199.
21. Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, Alexander Vilenkin, Inflationary spacetimes are not past-
complete, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 151301. (2003).
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301.
22. Alan H. Guth, David I. Kaiser, Inflationary Cosmology: Exploring the Universe from the
Smallest to the Largest Scales, Science, Vol. 307, Issue 5711, pp. 884-890. (2005) DOI:
10.1126/science.1107483
23. Fiscaletti, D., & Sorli, A.S. A Three-Dimensional Non-Local Quantum Vacuum as the Origin
of Photons. Ukrainian Journal of Physics, 65(2), 106 (2020).
https://doi.org/10.15407/ujpe65.2.106.
24. Masanori S., Gravitational effect on the refractive index: A hypothesis that the permittivity,
ε0, and permeability, µ0 are dragged and modified by the gravity
https://arxiv.org/vc/arxiv/papers/0704/0704.1942v3.pdf.
25. NASA, Mystery of the Universe’s Expansion Rate Widens With New Hubble Data (2019)
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2019/mystery-of-the-universe-s-expansion-rate-
widens-with-new-hubble-data.
26. Edward Robert Harrison (2003). Masks of the Universe. Cambridge University Press.
p. 206. ISBN 978-0-521-77351-5.
27. Firstenberg, O., Peyronel, T., Liang, QY. et al. Attractive photons in a quantum nonlinear
medium. Nature 502, 71–75 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1038/nature12512.
24
28. Freedman, W. Cosmology at a crossroads. Nat Astron 1, 0121 (2017).
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41550-017-0121.
29. Lucas Lombriser, Consistency of the local Hubble constant with the cosmic microwave
background, Physics Letters B, Volume 803 (2020) 135303,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135303.
30. Rajendra Prasad, MANVINDER SINGH, Anil Kumar Yadav, A. Beesham. An exact solution
of the observable universe in Bianchi V space-time, International Journal of Modern Physics
A (2021). https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217751X21500445.
31. Fiscaletti, D. About Dark Energy and Dark Matter in a Three-Dimensional Quantum Vacuum
Model. Found Phys 46, 1307–1340 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10701-016-0021-z
32. Annika H.G. Peter, Vera Gluscevic, Anne M. Green, Bradley J. Kavangh, Samuel K. Lee,
WIMP physics with ensembles of direct-detection experiments, Physics of the Dark Universe
Volumes 5–6, December 2014, Pages 45-74 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dark.2014.10.006.
33. Peebles, P.J.E., Open problems in cosmology, Nuclear Physics B - Proceedings Supplements,
138, 5-9 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysbps.2004.11.001
34. Jones, A.W., Lasenby, A.N. The Cosmic Microwave Background. Living Rev. Relativ., 1, 11
(1998). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-1998-11.
35. Fixsen, D. J. (2009). "The Temperature of the Cosmic Microwave Background". The
Astrophysical Journal. 707 (2): 916 920. (2009). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/707/2/916.
36. Guth, A., The Inflatory Universe. The Beamline, 27, 14 (1997).
https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Guth/Guth3.html.
37. Sir James Jeans, The Structure of the Universe, NATURE, 151, 190-192 (1943).
https://www.nature.com/articles/151490a0.pdf.
38. O’Raifeartaigh, C., McCann, B., Nahm, W. et al. Einstein’s steady-state theory: an abandoned
model of the cosmos. EPJ H 39, 353–367 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjh/e2014-50011-
x.
39. Hameeda, M., Rocca, M. C., & Brzo, A. B. (2020). Partition function and coherent states for
the quantum multiverse. Physics of the Dark Universe, 100767.
40. Philip Ball, Exorcising Einstein's spooks, Nature (2001) doi:10.1038/news011129-15
41. David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order, Routledge, 1980 (ISBN 0-203-99515-5).
42. VandenBerg, D.A., Bond, H.E., Nelan, E.P., Nissen, P.E., Schaefer, G.H., Harmer, D. Three
Ancient Halo Subgiants: Precise Parallaxes, Compositions, Ages, and Implications for
Globular Clusters (2014). https://arxiv.org/abs/1407.7591.
43. Charles. L. Steinhardt, Peter Capak, Dan Masters, and Josh S. Speagle, THE IMPOSSIBLY
EARLY GALAXY PROBLEM. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 824, Number 1 (2016)
10.3847/0004-637X/824/1/21.
44. Anthony H. Gonzalez et al. IDCS J1426.5+3508: COSMOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF A
MASSIVE, STRONG LENSING CLUSTER AT z = 1.75, The Astrophysical
Journal, Volume 753, Number 2 (2012), 10.3847/2041-8205/818/2/L25.
45. Gurzadyan, V.G., Penrose, R. On CCC-predicted concentric low-variance circles in the CMB
sky. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 128, 22 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjp/i2013-13022-4.
