Questions related to Cosmology

The above question emerges from a parallel session [1] on the basis of two examples:

1. Experimental data [2] that apparently indicate the validity of

*Mach’s Principle*stay out of discussion after main-stream consensus tells Mach to be out, see also appended PDF files.2. The negative outcome of gravitational wave experiments [3] apparently does not affect the main-stream acceptance of claimed discoveries.

If we ignore fermions and bosons, what is your model of the pristine vacuum? One aspect of this question is designated the “cosmological constant problem”. The observable energy density in the universe is about 10

^{-9}J*/*m^{3}. This is the average energy density of ordinary matter, dark matter, and dark energy. However, one interpretation of quantum field theory says that the vacuum has zero-point energy density of about 10^{113}J*/*m^{3}. This enormous energy density has been called “the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics.” However, this enormous vacuum energy density is supported because it is used to make the most accurate theoretical prediction in all of physics (the electron’s anomalous magnetic moment).Quantum field theory says that the vacuum is not empty because it contains all the fields required by the standard model of particle physics. However, the geometric interpretation of gravity from general relativity implies the vacuum is an empty medium that can be curved by matter. For example, the strong equivalence principle requires this geometric interpretation. If gravity is transferred by gravitons, then gravitational acceleration and physical acceleration would have different causes.

There have been hundreds of scientific articles written on the cosmological constant problem and most of these articles attempt to disprove the 10

^{113}J/m^{3}energy density. There is no doubt that this is not observable energy, but could this be the undetectable fields required by quantum field theory? A field is undetectable until an “excitation” is introduced to create an observable particle (observable energy density). I have written several papers exploring this model. However, what is your vacuum model?In mid-July 2022, NASA published the first images taken with the help of the James Webb Space Telescope. The James Webb Space Telescope programme, which has been underway for many years, is now complete and operational in 2022. The images taken with the help of the James Webb Space Telescope are much more accurate compared to the images previously taken by the Hubble Space Telescope. The image presented by NASA shows the result of a study of the composition of the atmosphere of exoplanet WASP-96b. It is one of the first images published on 12.7.2022 and taken thanks to the state-of-the-art James Webb Space Super Telescope located in Earth's orbit. The image shows a graphic depiction of the results of the WASP-96b NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI measurement of the composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere. Through this image, NASA has shown the result of the extremely sensitive instruments found on the James Webb Telescope. The image shows the most accurate measurements to date of the composition of the atmosphere of an exoplanet, or planet, located outside the Solar System. The exoplanet whose atmosphere the telescope has studied is WASP-96 b, a gas giant located just beyond the edge of the Solar System, at a distance of about 1,100 light years from Earth. It is particularly interesting that the telescope detected, among other things, noticeable traces of water in the studied composition of the exoplanet's atmosphere! The collected data also suggest that the atmosphere of this celestial body contains water vapour and clouds. Thus, we are probably gradually approaching research results which will confirm that, with a high level of probability, there is water, Earth-like environmental and climatic conditions and some form of life on many exoplanets located many thousands and millions of light years from our Solar System. In view of this, the technology of space exploration, including the study of what is found on other exoplanets thanks to the James Webb Space Telescope, has made great strides.

Will the James Webb Space Telescope provide answers to the long-standing human question:

Are there other forms of life beyond planet Earth on distant exoplanets, in other planetary systems, in other constellations, other galaxies?

Are there other forms of life, including intelligent other forms of life, somewhere in the Universe beyond planet Earth?

What do you think about this topic?

What is your opinion on this subject?

Please reply,

I invite you all to discuss,

Thank you very much,

Best regards,

Dariusz

If so, experimental results and related theory might also be helpful ...

The calculation of the cosmological constant performed by the QTF and the values of this offered by the different cosmological measurements seem to be correct. Could it be that this so called constant is not in fact constant and depends on the dimensions of the system studied?

LIGO and cooperating institutions obviously determine distance r of their hypothetical gravitational wave sources on the basis of a 1/r dependence of related spatial strain, see on page 9 of reference below. Fall-off by 1/r in fact applies in case of gravitational potential V

_{g}= - GM/r of a single source. Shouldn’t any additional effect of a binary system with internal separation s - just for geometrical reasons - additionally reduce by s/r ?The existence of negative pressure of vacuum follows from the cosmological models, based on the results of observations. The gravitational defect of mass is interpreted as the transfer of energy to the vacuum, which becomes apparent from its deformation.The gravitational impact of matter on the vacuum and opposite in the sign pressure of it can be determined in case of weakly gravitating static centrally symmetric distribution of matter. A possibility to extend the obtained results to arbitrary gravitational systems is evaluated. The equation of state (p_v =-(1/3)[q_L+q_m+q_rel]) gives the deceleration parameter of the universe consistent with its accelerating expansion.

Imagine a row of golf balls in a straight line with a distance of one metre between each golf ball. This we call row A. Then there is a second row of golf balls (row B) placed right next to the golf balls in row A. We can think of the row A of golf balls as marking of distance measurements within the inertial frame of reference corresponding to row A (frame A). Similarly the golf balls in row B mark the distance measurements in frame B. Both rows are lined up in the x direction.

Now simultaneously all the golf balls in row B start to accelerate in the x direction until they reach a steady velocity v at which point the golf balls in row B stop accelerating. It is clear that the golf balls in row B will all pass the individual golf balls of row A at exactly the same instant when viewed from frame A. It must also be the case that the golf balls in the rows pass each other simultaneously when viewed from frame B.

So we can see that the distance measurements in the frame of B are the same as the distance measurements in row A. The row of golf balls is in the x direction so this suggests that the coordinate transformation between frame A and frame B should be x - vt.

This contradicts the Lorentz transformation equation for the x direction which is part of the standard SR theory.

If we were to replace the golf balls in row B with measuring rods of length one metre then in order to match the observations of the Michelson Moreley experiment we would conclude that measuring rods must in general experience length contraction relative to a unique frame of reference. So this thought experiment suggests that we need to maintain distances as invariant between moving frames of reference while noting that moving objects experience length contraction.

This also implies the existence of a unique frame of reference against which the velocity v is measured.

Preprint Space Rest Frame (March 2022)

I would be interested to see if the thought experiment can be explained within standard Special Relativity while retaining the Lorentz transformation equations.

Richard

The origin of life on Earth is still not known. Some maintain that rather than it having originated here as a result of complex organic chemical reactions that it arrived fully formed from space on comets.

What evidence is there that would support this claim?

Even if true it would still not fully explain how life came about in the universe. Does anyone have any suggestions as to that conundrum?

The offended paper is here:

This is a rhetorical question since, in my mind, that is utterly non-acceptable.

I say that while accepting the reality that it takes time to write a few paragraphs in a rejection letter.

That said, it might take years to polish the arguments contained in a paper.

In my case, it took 16 years.

My issue is that, on purpose, I chose to tackle the Big Bang Theory first. It is the weakest model in the whole Physics. There are "Crisis in Cosmology" articles written by everyone and their cats. There is Hubble Tension, S8 tension... Missing Dark Matter, Early Galaxy Formation Conundrum...

Not to mention the lack of any evidence of a False Vacuum, Inflaton Field or Inflaton Particle, etc, etc.

My theory starts with a new model for matter, where matter is made of shapeshifting deformations of the metric (so, it is not Mass Deforms Metric, but modulated metric is mass).

It cannot be simpler. It allows the Universe to have just space, deformed space and time - the simplest possible model.

Occam's Razor will tell you that this model should be part of the conversation.

The Universe starts from a Heisenberg-Dictated Metric Hyperspherical Fluctuation, which after partial recombination is left with an Inner Dilation Layer (IDL) and the Outermost Contraction Layer (OCL).

As one would expect OCL breaks apart when it starts to move, pushed by the IDL. This process has a physical analogy in the Prince Rupert Drop

SO, the model is disappointly simple. No metrics, nothing for you to polish... just a simple model that explains EVERYTHING.

It also debunks General Relativity (Einstein's equations do not describe the Universe expansion). And replicates all Einstein's successes, while providing simpler explanations (instead of time dilation, we have the weakening of forces with absolute velocity).

What about ABSOLUTE VELOCITY? Well, we all know we can define absolute velocity using the CMB. Period. So, absolute velocity (and the breakdown of Relativity) shouldn't be a surprise.

So, my theory also challenges the current Cosmic Distance Ladder and in doing so (using an epoch-dependent law of Gravitation), it parameterless predicts the distances using just the redshifts. The predictions are attached.

So, in doing so, it attacks Dark Matter and Dark Energy and all the sordid interests behind them. I say sordid in the sense that I believe that all these entrenched interests are at play in this summary rejection of my work.

Why would I say that? There is a simple reason. If an editor (and all the other editors) don't bother to justify their actions, one is left with nothing to do other than speculate on the WHY.

**Why is it ok for preprint repositories to block my already published work?? That is happening (and happened during the last 16 years) at the Los Alamos Archives.**

**Why would it be ethical for an editor not to write a single paragraph pointing to an specific scientific reason for yanking a paper out of the review process?**

**How calous these people can be with respect to Science and Mankind's Future? Science is the key to the Future. It shouldn't be at the mercy of unconfessable motivations.**

If so, why should we neglect the effect of gravitational potential from remote masses of the universe which is about 10

^{6}times larger than the additional gravitational potential at the Sun's surface**??****Asher Peres**:

**VARIABILITY OF FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS**

*"Are universal fundamental constants really constant over cosmological times? Recent observations of the fine structure of spectral lines in the early universe have been interpreted as due to a variation of the fine structure constant e2/4πε0ℏc. From the assumed validity of Maxwell equations in general relativity and well known experimental facts, it is proved that e and ℏ are absolute constants. On the other hand, the speed of light need not be constant*."

_{(}

_{International Journal of Modern Physics D}

_{, Volume 12, Issue 09, October 2003)}

If the fabric of the Universe is expanding we also do expand, the solar system is expanding, our galaxy is expanding. Even a rod of 1m length is expanding. So, how can we show that the fabric of our universe is expanding if the tool with which we measure length is expanding itself? Also, if we cannot prove, then how do we know that it really happens? How can we test it?

But there is more: could it be that the fabric does not expand and we just miss something?

At the beginning of the 20th century, Newton’s second law was corrected considering the limit speed c and the relativistic mass. At that time there has not been a clear understanding of the subatomic particles and basically there was little research in high energy physics.

According to particles of matter transfer discrete amounts of energy by exchanging bosons with each other and energy has mass and momentum, we can recorrect relativistic Newton’s second laws directly by using conservation law of momentum.

A fascinating question in theoretical physics is whether it is possible to extend Einstein's ideas beyond gravitation to all aspects of physics. The energy-momentum tensor is usually defined extrinsically over the space-time manifold. But could it rather be derived from the geometry alone ? Likewise our local subjective notion of time is given by a local orientation which need not be globally consistent as in Gödel's famous model.

It has been proposed that space-time may have a foam- or sponge-like fine-grained structure (possible involving extra dimensions) which explains energy and matter and the other fundamental forces in a Kaluza-Klein style. That is, "microlocally" the topology of the space-time manifold is highly complex and there may be even a direct relationship between mass, energy and cohomology complexes in an appropriate derived category. At this fine scale there may even be non-local wormholes that connect distant regions of space-time and explain quantum entanglement.

But why not consider the universe as a Thom-Mather stratified space (one can think of this as a smooth version of analytic spaces or algebraic varieties) rather than a manifold ? In this case "singularities" would be "natural" structures not pathologies as in black holes. It is difficult not to think of matter (or localised energy) as corresponding to a singular region of this stratified space. Has this approach been considered in the literature ?

related to study in galaxies, space and time.

I propose a discussion on an issue that can be brought closer through the following few questions: (1) Was the appearance of biological life on our planet, and then of humans

and their consciousness - the result of a coincidence, or rather an element of some process important on the scale of the entire universe? (2) Is the universe aware of its existence?

(3) In addition to the consciousness of people, is there another, superior consciousness in the universe? (4) Will the knowledge and technological abilities of people and their descendants

impoortant for the resumption of a new aeon of the existence of the universe, assuming the rationale of the cyclic cosmological model?

These questions are explained in more details in the text available here entitled: "Recent, new arguments for the theory of necessity of people's participation in reoccurrence of sub - Universe"

Do such measurements make sense? Do they exist?

Comparing redshift and luminosity distances, if that is a sensible question, may bear on the 4/3 scaling hypothesis as it relates to dark energy.

Cosmological explanations for our apparently fine-tuned universe are basically divided between a) a vastly huge multiverse of universes with varying fundamental force and mass constants, including the cosmological constant (where our apparently fine-tuned universe is just one universe in this multiverse), or b) a cosmic intelligence that fine-tuned our universe at its beginning to evolve stable galaxies, life and developed minds. In scientific terms, which explanation is preferable? Are there other options? Is a cosmic mind a viable scientific hypothesis for explaining our universe's origin?

The 4/3 laws imply that a SN1A’s luminosity distance is 4/3 of its redshift distance.

From a naive point of view, this could be consistent with Big Bang cosmology but also with a steady state cosmology.

If the 4/3 laws were valid, and if they were consistent with both cosmologies, what would that imply?

If the 4/3 laws do not distinguish between the two cosmologies, is that a logical flaw in the 4/3 laws or is it a logical flaw with one or both of the two cosmologies?

For the 4/3 laws, I refer to my projects on the 4/3 laws, and to a recent article Dark energy modeled by scaling

Preprint Dark energy modeled by scaling

Has anyone ever measured the velocity of light or gamma photons coming in from remote sources ?

Or can we see to the „end of the Universe“ in one direction?

Do you think that man will ever leave our solar system?

Please, answer, comments.

I invite you to the discussion.

Best wishes

This thread is for those who want to know how to calculate Research Interest (RI) and participate in this validation study. *** Welcome to

**the validation study of my formula for Research Interest (RI) on the RG site!**Details are in the first reply in this discussion.How much constrained the recombination temperature is?

Dear Sirs,

This question, it seems to me, may arise in the first meeting with general relativity theory. Free falling box with its locally inertial coordinate system, e.g. in the Earth gravity field, moves the same as space particles of the real spacetime continuum. So we can imagine that around us there is "a fluid" of space particles which moves towards to the Earth center. The imaginary fluid penetrates freely through the matter.

Have the space particles some dimensions (maybe the minimal one as real water, e.g.), any properties or even any forces accociated with them, does the motion look like the viscous or ideal or non Newtonian fluid?

I would be grateful of any comments on spacetime as fluid.

Possibly: 4/3 scaling is a fundamental universal principle. Nothing underlies it. Why? It accounts for expanding cosmological space. Since 4/3 scaling brings 3 dimensional space, and hence everything else, into existence, it must be fundamental.

Can that be right? What favors and disfavors this notion?

Mass density within the expanding Universe may be assumed to stay essentially constant due to steady formation of elementary particles by spontaneous or induced creation of vortices at an elementary scale, see attached references. No

*Big Bang*nor*Dark Matter*are required under the above assumptions.Dear Sirs,

The elevator example in general relativity is used to show that gravitational force and an inertial force are not distinguishable. In other words the 2nd Newton's law is the same in the two frames: inertial frame with homogenous gravitational field and the elevator's frame without gravitational field which has constant acceleration in respect to the inertial frame.

But every one knows that an inertial force is a force which does not obey the 3rd Newton's law. For example such forces are cetrifugal force and Coriolis force existing in the Earth reference frame. Gravitational force satisfies the 3rd Newton's law. So one can conclude that the gravitational force is not inertial.

Could you clarify the above controversy.

It feels strange to have discovered a new fundamental physics discipline after a gap of a century. It is called

*Cryodynamics*, sister of the chaos-borne deterministic*Thermodynamics*discovered by Yakov Sinai in 1970. It proves that Fritz Zwicky was right in 1929 with his alleged “tired light” theory.The light traversing the cosmos hence lawfully loses energy in a distance-proportional fashion, much as Edwin Hubble tried to prove.

Such a revolutionary development is a rare event in the history of science. So the reader has every reason to be skeptical. But it is also a wonderful occasion to be one of the first who jump the new giant bandwagon. Famous cosmologist

**Wolfgang Rindler**was the first to do so. This note is devoted to his memory.November 26, 2019

Due to the Unruh effect the vacuum energy for the uniformly accelerated observer looks like as the equilibrium background with the Hawking-Unruh temperature $T=\hbar a/2\pi ck_B$, where $a$ is the acceleration. So we can conclude that the vacuum energy specifies a noninertial frame of reference with respect to which one can define an acceleration of any particle (note that vacuum energy does not specify any inertial frame of reference because it is uniformly distributed in a four-dimensional continuum so that all four directions for it are identical). But as it follow from Freedmann's equations a relative acceleration of two galaxies (observers) which currently are on distance R from each other is equal to $a= (\Omega_{\Lambda}-\Omega_m)H_0^2R/2$. So if in some point of the Universe the Hawking-Unruh temperature is equal to zero for the other points it is not so. Such way the vacuum energy specifies on an existence of a center of the Universe contrary to the cosmological principle which claims that the properties of the Universe are the same for all observers. In this situation it does not matter whether we can observe the Unruh radiation or not. This means that our knowledge about the Universe and the vacuum energy are incompatible.

To solve this conflict one can assume that the Universe is a hypersphere which isotropically expands on the background of 4D Euclidean space. In such case the accelerations (with respect to background) of all points belonging to hypersphere would be equal. As an alternative, we also can assume that vacuum energy does not exist in reality. Unfortunately both of these assumptions lie beyond the standard model of physics. Can someone help me solve this puzzle?

We cannot receive electromagnetic signals far beyond 13,800 million light·years, but the Cosmic Microwave Background distance have been stablished in 46,500 million light·years; how it this feasible?

Mysticism is often treated as the opposite of science. But is it? Please see

**Black Holes out of a galaxy: do they exist???**

**➣➣The question is as follow.**

**Are there black holes outside the confines of a galaxy{*}, in the spaces between one galaxy and another???**

**{*}Galaxy is not meant only the Milky Way but any type of galaxy.**

**In what way can be identified and/or measured these hypothetical extragalactic black holes???**

**➢➢Il quesito è il seguente.**

**Esistono buchi neri al di fuori dei confini di una galassia{*}, negli spazi tra una galassia e l'altra???**

**{*}Galassia non viene intesa la sola Via Lattea ma qualsiasi tipo di galassia.**

**in che modo possono essere individuati e/o misurati questi ipotetici buchi neri extragalattici???**

**Previous POSTS:**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1881512595213728**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886349588063362**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1886357694729218**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1887495014615486**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1903371136361207**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990787000952953**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990806470951006**

**►**

**https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/1990816627616657**

**►https://www.facebook.com/SalVi.SalvatoreVicidomini/posts/2378526012179048**

The document: DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.1.4285.9289

Mathematically the question is to determine all the transformations realized between some coordinate systems which have a physical reality for the experimenters: each of these four-dimensional coordinate systems is formed by a cartesian and rectangular coordinate system of a three-dimensional Euclidean physical space, and by a particular temporal parameter which is qualified as cartesian and whose construction is specified. We obtain then a group of nonlinear transformations that contains the Poincaré group and is described by about fifteen real numbers.

Interpretation:

1 / The paradox of Ehrenfest:

If the elements of a family of observers are not motionless the ones with recpect to the others, in other words if their world lines are not elements of a unique physical space, then even in the context of classical kinematics, how they can manage to put end to end their infinitesimal rules to determine the length of a segment of curve of their reference frame (each will naturally ask his neighbor not to move until measurement is ended) ? this is the basis for the proposed solution to Ehrenfest paradox. Inspired by the expression of the law of Hubble, every theory must provide explicit or implicit assumptions to compare "the proper distance" D (which can vary over time) which separates an arbitrarily chosen experimenter P from a certain object, and "the proper distance" D' which separates another arbitrarily selected experimenter P' from the same object and this because it is admitted that this concept of proper distance has a physical meaning even in a non-comoving reference frame.

2 / The authorized relative motions are quantified:

I establish an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of the "classical kinematics" and an Eulerian description of the construction of all the physical spaces of nature in the context of the new theory. In classical kinematics all the authorized relative motions between observers can be described by two arbitrary functions of the universal temporal parameter (one of the rotation and one of the translation) and in the context of the new theory, all the authorized relative motions between observers are described by at most 15 real numbers. A notion of expansion of the universe is established as being a structural reality and a rigorous formulation of the experimental law of Hubble is proposed.

Thank you.

Redshift of radiation energy density has been taking place since the early universe due to the expansion of the universe. How much energy has been lost? How does our cosmological model account for it?

Alexander Ostermann and Gerhard Wanner, 2012, Springer, Geometry by its history.

On Euclid at page 30: "The fourth postulate expresses the homogeneity of space in all directions by using the right angle as a universal measure for angles; ..."

Dear members,

I would like to know a complete list (with detailed use) of the application of the Euler Mascheroni constant, hopefully in current research in physics and others fields of exact science.

I would like to know special formulas in cosmology, quantum mechanics, statistics, etc., where the constant appeared with a very good explanation of why it is or at least valid arguments of the equations that contain that constant.

I am exploring its use.

Thanks!

Carlos

For example, there are several cosmological solutions such as:

- Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (Friedmann equations)
**Kasner****BKL singularity****Gödel****Milne****etc,**

Space-time has 4 dimensions. Space has 3 dimensions.

If both co-exist, then a length in 4 dimensions with a fixed amount of energy should be 4/3 as long in 3 dimensions if the length in 3 dimensions corresponds to the same amount of energy. Because in 3 dimensions there is 4/3 as much energy per dimension.

If physics is stuck in a paradigm trap, that might explain problems relating to the cosmic constant a(t), the expansion of space, the cosmological horizon problem, cosmological inflation, Everett’s many worlds hypothesis, as well as terrestrial examples of the 4:3 ratio such as metabolic scaling and Richardson’s wind eddies, among others.

Or not.

How can physics climb out of a paradigm trap if it unknowingly stuck in it?

Dr. Hans-Otto Carmesin is a prolific theoretician who wrote among other things, these two books:

Modeling SN1a data:

Data H0_20210424.pdf

That said, he leads a field where a lot of unsupported claims are tossed around without anything to support it. That is why they are unsupported..:)

As Dr. Carmesin professed, scientists should follow the teachings of Aristotle and always use the simplest possible model that is consistent with Reality.

Dr. Carmesin's model has nonlocality, dimensional transitions, the usual suspects (Dark Matter and Dark Energy), and an epoch-dependent Dark Energy (figure 8.15 on the first book above).

It is a fantastic work and from my point of view, unnecessary and incorrect.

Unnecessary because there is HU which is capable to explain everything Dr. Carmesin explained without the need for a Big Bang, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, epoch-dependent Dark Matter, Polychromatic Vacuum. Because of that, Aristotle and Occam's Razor would support HU and rebut Dr. Carmesin's work.

Attached is my summary of the problems I found on Dr. Carmesin's claims that SN1a distances support his work.

**#########################################**

**#########################################**

**#########################################**

This is an ongoing discussion.

Dr. Carmesin provided a reply to my objections and

**confirmed that he is not sure if his model can predict the SN1a distances**.In fact, he said:

**"My theory does not fail to predict these distances. I just did not calculate these distances yet for a good reason: I tested my full theory by calculating the measured Hubble constants of the Hubble tension."****First, that is not a good reason. Second, I calculated the distances according to his model and the model failed. See the plot and the attached python script.**

**#########################################**

My plot of his model showcases that the model fails to predict the observed distances.

I also drive home the fact that Dr. Carmesin's model modifies the meaning of H0 (the Hubble Constant). Because of that comparison of results are not straightforward and seems to not have been considered before.

The plots also show that HU model predicts the observed distances without any parameters.

I am looking for a PhD in philosophy of physics in the field of cosmology, relativity and foundations of space-time physics. I would like to get some advises regarding this. Thanks a lot for the help.

In calculating the orbit of Mercury according to QM, it becomes open [1]. This is our answer to this question. A second answer is that GR requires QM.

According to the Niels Bohr view, it is not that the universe is quantum ontologically, in its essence as Natur, but we give it an observed quantum model, and interpret it that way.

"Physics concerns what we can say about Nature," explained Niels Bohr [2]. As one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, Bohr explained further, that "there is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description".

In that sense, TR (topology reduction) by the author can be understood as providing the topological basis -- TR means "that a continuous path in a higher dimension must be discontinuous when projected in a lower dimension".

TR does not change Wirklichkeit (nature as we oserve it), nor Natur (nature as unkown, unseen) as divided by Kant, in German. TR just changes how we observe nature. In that sense, TR changes physics -- Niels Bohr explained -- as physics concerns what we can say about nature, and there our description changes, although the facts remain the same.

A similar situation happens with the number Pi, currently. We realize Pi as (3.141592...) is not measurable. Does it exist in nature, nonetheless?

To give a short answer, NO. The universe is a non-euclidean space, where the ratio of a circumference to its diameter must stand as the ratio of two finite integers. The value is similar, may change according to the local curvature, but the curvature is never zero and we can use use finite digits for the ratio. Rather than a particular value, the quantum becomes a rule.

This … changes GR, to a quantum basis -- what we were long waiting for -- harmonizing GR and QM.

While not changing values very much locally, the long distance predictions can become very different. For example, the orbit of Mercury becomes open, as we published [1]. The precession of Mercury is a sweep, and Mercury can escape!

And, with an open, spiraling out, orbit, Mercury can excite a sympathetic resonance with the Sun, wobbling in a growing faction, and even escape the Solar system in that growing orbit (see cosmological models). This could result in an exchange of orbital places of Venus <-> Earth, and the extinction of life on Earth -- by the growing temperature on Earth.

This is unlikely, but now more possible. The consequences of investigating Pi -- even though Pi should not exist in nature, as an infinite precision number, thinking about it can be instructive

Regarding GR and QM, what is your qualified opinion? Have we hit all the right reasons to modify GR, as in [1]? While not changing values very much locally, the long distance predictions can become very different.

REFERENCES

[2] Petersen, A. The Philosophy of Niels Bohr. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 19, No.7, 1963.

The Big Bang was an explosion. In an explosion, everything flies away from everything. Neither our galaxy, nor Andromeda were created immediately after the big Bang. However, all this bulk of matter from which Andromeda was produced, should recede from us.

So, what's wrong here?

A. Bejan, A. Almerbati and S. Lorente have concluded that `the economies of scale phenomenon is a fundamental feature of all flow (moving) systems, animate, inanimate, and human made’ (https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4974962).

The universe’s space everywhere flows — expands — outwards from its beginning. Economies of scale appear to arise in flowing systems. Is cosmogenesis an economy of scale phenomenon for the entire universe?

Are the physics of cosmogenesis and economies of scale the same?

It is commonly accepted that General Relativity has its own 'bare' cosmological constant that contributes together with the cosmological constant resulting from vacuum energy density for an effective cosmological constant. Are there any candidates for this 'bare' cosmological constant?

*The New Science of Cryodynamics and Its Connection to Cosmology*This was ten years ago.

He was born in 1931.

I think every matter is made up of fragments of energies. On that point, everything in nature is a creation of energies existing in the universe, even every living being.

So, what are the scientific evidence which has been proved? any scientific publications? laboratory findings using human and animal models? and Why human being doesn't feel internal and external universal energies which flowing and circulating internal body cavity and in the universe?

The standard LCDM cosmology is thought to work well at explaining the large scale structure of the Universe. However, the unexpectedly fast local expansion (Hubble tension) might indicate that we are in a large local supervoid:

This is not feasible in LCDM, but is in alternative gravity theories like MOND, where a standard background cosmology is preserved but structure formation is enhanced - as discussed further in this blog, and the linked YouTube video below it:

In addition to voids, evidence for unexpectedly fast structure formation is also provided by El Gordo, which rules out LCDM cosmology at high significance:

In light of these publications, references therein, and other works, is it still true that LCDM accounts very well for the large scale structure of the Universe?

His disproof of cosmic expansion is a catastrophe for Stockholm, and for the young generation’s trust in their elders. And for the survival chances of humankind.

Sept. 24, 2020

The total energy of two bodies in gravitational interaction must be

(m1 + m2) c^2 - G m1 m2 / r ,

where r is the distance between them. When r is G/c^2 times the reduced mass, the total energy and hence the total mass vanish! It is the Schwarzschild radius, so a black hole may form. Does it necessarily have zero mass? Is this not contradictory?

Dear Sirs,

The 1st law in Newton`s principia are now understood as two statements: the determination of inertial frame reference (if F=0 then a=0 and if F is not equal 0 then there is some body accelleration "a"); there is in nature at least one inertial frame reference. Theoretically I can understand it a little bit. As we have such a determination of inertial frame reference then the 2 nd Newton law is not directly followed from the 1 st law, or this determination is partly independent of the 2nd law. So it looks like logically good.

But what we have in experiment? I do not know whether there is any research on experimental determination of any particular inertial system (like International Celestial Reference System) using the 1 st Newton law. So in practice we use the 2 nd law (e.g. school example - foucault pendulum plane rotation). Could you clarify on the experimental and theoretical determination of inertial frame reference. You know there are teachers that see the 1st law as the consequence of the 2nd law.

**Zwicky 1929: Brighter than the next 91 Years**

Otto E. Rossler

Faculty of Science, University of Tübingen, Auf der Morgenstelle, 72076 Tübingen, Germany

Sept. 24, 2020

Abstract

Fritz Zwicky was a lone wolf. There is a wonderful German-language autobiography of his, titled "Everyone a Genius." He was fearless as a mountaineer and as the first visitor to Hiroshima in 1945. His discovery of Cryodynamics, sister of deterministic Thermodynamics, is highlighted. A dark age thereby manifests itself over 3 generations.

------------------------------------------------------

No one else has played in the same league so far. Fritz Zwicky in 1929 correctly explained the freshly discovered cosmological redshift law of Edwin Hubble’s as being caused by the gravitational interaction of the passing light rays with the cauldron of moving galaxies. The recently discovered fundamental science of Cryodynamics, sister of Thermodynamics, has proved Zwicky correct. As a consequence, the “Big Bang” has ceased to exist.

This is a maximally embarrassing claim to make, of course, since the whole world has grown accustomed to the

*Big Bang*as a fact of nature. It appears impossible that all of humankind, including thousands of textbooks and the Swedish Academy itself, should have overlooked a new fundamental science, twin to Thermodynamics, for 91 years. And so more than a century after the discovery of Thermodynamics itself.This convincing reasoning notwithstanding, no criticism of Cryodynamics has surfaced since it was first described in 2011. To witness, a long review paper remains without critical response (https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-319-64334-2_30), as do several follow-up papers written by differing authors. The first detailed mathematical proof of the sister science to Thermodynamics is contained in the 2011 doctoral thesis of Klaus Sonnleitner on the Störmer-Verlet algorithm applied to a chaotic Hamiltonian system: StV4. This German-language dissertation (https://docplayer.org/12694730-Dissertation-vorgelegt-von-dipl-math-klaus-sonnleitner-aus-erftstadt-frauenthal-bei-koeln.html) still awaits translation into English. The connection to Zwicky’s work was drawn only later. Thus the re-discovery of Zwicky’s insight was slow in coming. Indeed, the existence of a whole new fundamental science is the price one has to pay. Thermodynamics and Cryodynamics do prove to be of equal rank, notwithstanding the more than a century long time gap that lies between their discoveries.

Not surprising then is the fact that the new fundamental science of Cryodynamics causes repercussions in the fabric of science at large. Even the survival of humankind is at stake. This is because a famous mega experiment – the “LHC” at CERN – proves to be unsafe to earth: A fact which was impossible to fathom before the discovery of Cryodynamics.

Dr. Sonnleitner unfortunately passed away shortly after obtaining his degree in old age. His dissertation reveals the unprecedented “numerical conscientiousness” of its author. The connection to Zwicky’s work then took several years to surface. So did the discovery of the general survival risk undergone by a humankind underestimating Zwicky the Great.

I thank Nils Schopohl for a discussion.

----------------------.

If quantum information is stored on the Event horizon of the black hole (according to the Holographic principle), What happens to information when black holes evaporate or merge?

According to Weyl and Chandrasekhar, general relativity (GR) is a triumph of speculative thought. But it is a well-known fact that GR is initiated by two analogies. Analogy is known to be a weak reasoning in science and philosophy. To redress the case this type of reasoning is renamed as Equivalence Principle (EP) in relativistic physics. The renaming, however, could not hide the fact that the presented analogy was not flawless. Irrefutable disproves were side-stepped and the analogy was instated to be the seed of new kind of physics. EP was defended by reducing the size of the lab and the duration of the experiment. This type of defending is like the proponents of flat-earth idea defend their case by reducing the patch of the land for examination until their pseudo-science theory is proven.

The attached document is a short description of EP analogies and its well-known critics. The document also introduces a new EP based on Uniform Deceleration of a spaceship in open space. This new analogy results in a different curvature of light in comparison to what original EP has established using uniform acceleration. The author believes that none of the conclusions from EPs should be allowed in science as they are based on inconclusive comparison/analogy and they ignore glaring flaws in the argument.

The author would like to present this new EP for discussion and criticism.

**A revolutionary Finding awaits the final Clinch:**

*c*-globalOtto E. Rossler

Institute for Physical and Theoretical Chemistry, University of Tubingen, Auf der Morgenstelle 14, 72076 Tubingen, Germany

(December 22, 2014)

**Abstract**

The global nature of the speed of light in the vacuum,

*c*, was given up by Einstein in December of 1907. A revival of the status*c*had enjoyed during the previous 2½ years, from 1905-1907, is in the literature for several years. The consequences of*c*-global for cosmology and black-hole theory are staggering. Since black holes are an acute concern to date, the question of whether a*c*-global transform of the Einstein equation can be demonstrated represents a vital issue.********

Imagine Einstein’s

*c*were not just a*local*constant of nature everywhere, as one reluctantly believes since late 1907, but rather a*global*constant. The return to this 1905-1907 view would revolutionize physics. For example, cosmic expansion which requires its speed to be added to the local*c*would no longer be a physical option. Secondly, quantum mechanics would cease to generate problems in its unification with general relativity. Thirdly, black holes would be stable and hence be voracious at any size.But

*is*the speed of light*c*not a global constant anyhow? While every layman and most every physicist believes so, this status was lost by*c*in late 1907. To witness, just look at the famous “Shapiro time delay”: Light from a distant satellite has, when grazing the sun on its way towards earth, an increased travelling time compared to the sun’s absence [1]. This experimentally verified implication of Einstein’s theory is canonically believed to reflect a locally reduced speed of light*c*[1]. With*c-*global, however, an increased*depth*of the space-time funnel around the sun is keeping*c*constant along the whole path [2].Is this unfamiliar proposal physically correct? There are two pieces of evidence, each sufficient. First, the famous Schwarzschild solution of the Einstein field equations was shown to possess a

*global-c transform*[3]; hence the global constancy of*c*exists mathematically. Second, the famous “equivalence principle” between ordinary kinematic acceleration and gravitation – postulated by Einstein in late 1907 – is based on special relativity alone with its global*c*. The equivalence principle was indeed recently proved*not*to imply a reduction of*c*downstairs in the constantly accelerating Einstein rocketship [4]. The*third*piece of evidence exists by implication: a global-*c*transform of the*full*Einstein field equations. It only waits to be written down.Why not rather wait with granting

*c*-global a broad visibility in the scientific community, given the embarrassing cosmological consequence mentioned? It is the*other*implication (regarding black holes) which justifies the visibility. Black holes currently have a chance to get produced down on earth. Only an absolutely un-ignorable*global-c transform of the full Einstein field equation*can possibly force the 6 years old LSAG “safety report” of the most prestigious experiment of history to be renewed in time,*before*the start at twice world-record energies planned in two months. The reward to the representative of Science magazine who accepts this paper for publication will lie in the*emergence-in-time*of the existing but not yet made-explicit “global-*c*Einstein equation.” This task is literally superhuman because finding the transform requires a unique strength of mind or else serendipity and hence predictably takes decades. Therefore, the manpower – the many alerted readers – of Science represents a planetary resource needed for once in the face of the self-closing time window.I thank Wolfgang Müller-Schauenburg and Boris Hagel for a discussion. For J.O.R.

**References**

[1] I.I. Shapiro, Fourth test of general relativity.

*Physical Review Letters***13**, 789-791 (1964).[2] A half-pseudosphere replaces the Flamm paraboloid.

[3] O.E. Rossler, Abraham-like return to constant

*c*in general relativity: Gothic-R theorem demonstrated in Schwarzschild metric.*Fractal Spacetime and Noncommutative Geometry in Quantum and High Energy Physics***2**, 1-14 (2012). Preprint on: http://www.wissensnavigator.com/documents/chaos.pdf[4] O.E. Rossler, Equivalence principle implies gravitational-redshift proportional space dilation and hence global constancy of

*c*.*European Scientific Journal***10**(9), 112-117 (2014).(Oct. 22, 2020)

Universal biogenesis

Brain equation

Smile theory

Artificial persons

Spiral chaos

Sound of chaos

Hyperchaos

Cryodynamics sister of Thermodynamics

Augustinian cosmology, confirmed

Lampsacus Hometown

Dirac and others combined the physical properties of vacuum space to predict a large energy in space, sometimes described in Planck units. Other researchers looked into the vacuum and found little energy there. Also the cosmological constant is small which might not agree with a strong energy field.

In other threads I have suggested that the physical laws reside in vacuum space and are enforced by the Dirac Sea of energy. In that work I partitioned the vacuum energy into four parts to correspond with the four forces with nearly equal parts of curving and reverse curving energy. The same concept can be represented in Lagrange functions and Lagrange density functions, where potential energy is curving like gravity and kinetic energy is reverse curving.

Zero Point energy was discussed for and against a source of the Dirac Sea. Casimir experiments eventually tilted the argument in favor of large energy in the Zero Point. Already discovered the charged W particles and neutral Z were found to have large energy in week interactions, more that the combined energy of interacting particles.

Other threads discussed the possibility that W and Z particles borrow energy from the vacuum governed by uncertainty principle for magnitude and time interval. A Higgs field was postulated from theory and decades later largely accepted as proven by experiments.

Discussions continued to find a vacuum expectation value for the Higgs field density. By estimate of one researcher the potential energy for Higgs is about 2.5×10

^{45}J/m^{3}, more than in a neutron star, but less than Planck energy. For nearly flat space this potential must be counter balanced by a kinetic energy field, possibly a Zero Point or some kinetic field that is not identified.It seems that new discoveries can be made in properties of vacuum space.

How Does The Higgs Field Relate To The Dirac Sea Of Energy?

Should a manned mission to

**, which could be implemented in a few years, be an***Mars***, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of***international mission***of the leading***international rivalry***largest countries?***economically and politically*Apparently a manned mission to the

**is now technically possible.***planet Mars*Researchers working on

**argue that it is***space exploration programs***that humans already have the necessary technology to carry out a two-year manned mission to Mars.***technically possible*First of all, it is necessary for the US President to issue a program of a manned

**.***mission to Mars*A similar program in the 1980s was announced by then US President John F. Kennedy.

The plan of a manned mission to the moon was fully realized at that time.

However, the current mission to Mars,

**, would require large financial outlays for the implementation of this mission.***technically possible*Perhaps it would be necessary to organize an international consortium that would organize an international manned

**.***mission to Mars*Maybe it could also be an international crew of this mission?

Then mission costs could be spread over several countries and it would have global significance in terms of international cooperation.

The previous analogous manned

**, i.e. the manned expedition to Earthly Princes in the 1970s, had the significance of political rivalry between the then US and the Soviet Union.***space mission*It was a symbolic technological race.

Is the planned manned

**also inspired by this type of international competition, for example between the***mission to Mars***or possibly also some other countries?***US and China*China is rapidly developing technologically, aspiring to become a global powerhouse in a few years time. 1 not only in the scope of production of various goods and economic growth but also in the matter of having the most

**implemented in various economic applications.***modern innovative technologies*In the US, a very large, historically high public debt can be a significant finns barrier to finance and thus the USA will organize a manned mission to Mars in the next few years.

If this mission to Mars is mainly inspired by this new international rivalry in terms of having technological capabilities, it is currently difficult to predict which country will win the race and be the first to organize manned

**?***missions to Mars*In view of the above, I ask you with the following question: Should a manned

**, which could be implemented in a few years be an***mission to Mars***, or rather a national one, inspired and organized according to the familiar concept of the 1970s, of***international mission***leading economically and politically the largest countries?***international rivalry***. I invite you to the discussion**

*Please reply*Will this be the final incarnation of this question?

My purpose in asking these questions is to motivate the kind of physical theory that accepts that Physical Laws are part of The Universe, as opposed to standing outside it. And that rules governing The Universe must stem form The Universe itself. Otherwise, we should be asking: Where do the Physical Laws come from?

According to Kardashev Scale, can a Type I Civilization be able to develop artificially intelligent system that surpasses it's own intelligence to match the intelligence of higher civilizations in the hierarchy?

Dear Researchers,

I want to buy a telescope and request for the suggestions. Which one should I buy with better resolution?

Thank you

Einstein said that energy (or mass) is equivalent to the curvature of the spacetime, based on the Einstein field equations. But I have some questions: What is the effect of energy on the spacetime itself? Are they independent of each other? Does the existence of energy lead to create the spacetime and vice versa in the evolution of the Universe known from the Hot Big Bang model? Is there another physical concept to relate them to each other?

A team led by students probes the mass-radius relation of white dwarf stars, observing in their data evidence of quantum mechanics and Einstein’s theory of general relativity.

This puzzling relationship between a white dwarf’s mass and size, called the mass-radius relation, was first theorized by Nobel Prize-winning astrophysicist Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar in the 1930s. Now, a team of Johns Hopkins astrophysicists has developed a method to observe the phenomenon itself using astronomical data collected by the Sloan Digital Sky Survey and a recent dataset released by the Gaia Space Observatory. The combined datasets provided more than 3,000 white dwarfs for the team to study.

A report of their findings, led by Hopkins senior Vedant Chandra, is now published in

*The Astrophysical Journal*.