Is the universe infinite?

Forum Moderator

How far would you have to travel to find another Earth? One with the same temperature, the same oceans, the same countries... and eventually, the same room and the same person sitting inside it? Anthony Aguirre follows that thought experiment to its strange conclusion: what happens if the universe is infinite?

Keywords: Infinite universe, multiverse, infinity

Steve Dufourny

Hi Professor Aguirre,
This thought experiment is interesting about statistics and probabilities. I consider an unique universe and a finite one, but it is relevant to extrapolate these probabilities. How to consider the infinity, the homogeneity, the isotropic parameters, the inflation ....and so the probabilities. I learnt a lot in cosmology for my theory of spherisation, an optimisation of the universe , so It becomes ontologically relevant in extrapolating the possibilities and the probabilities with the statistical mechanics and quantum correlations , informations....

The works of Bekenstein becomes interesting also about entropy and informations, That is why I liked for the spherical region. It is there that the ontology of this universe becomes interesting also in extrapolating possibilities even if we have these limitations ontological, physical, mathematical.... The observable universe and its radius , the Hilbert space,....that implies possibilities already in a finite universe and so we can go farer with this thought experiment that you explained.but that becomes so complex in the possibilities and ways. Already in a finite observable universe , it is complex more our limitations , so it becomes even more complex with this thought experiement. That is why all this becomes an incredible puzzle with the mathematical universe of Tegmark and your ideas and the multiverses. The ontology , the maths , our knowledges, our possbile extrapolations of the mind imply so this incredible complexity in the possibilities.
So in a sense, to resume, what is the distance in a infinite universe to reach the identical copy of ourself inside this universe.
Is it about volumes for these statistics and probabilities, and so we can extrapolate the states, yes but not easy to reach this identical copy of ourself in the same planet with the same parameters. We can utilise the sphere radius to find this distance but wowww what a complexity about the particles, quantum states to reach the copy , even the memories, the history ......must be considered. So the combinatorics identical conditions require this complexity farer than our observable universe . It is relevant for an understanding of this infinity at my humble opinion. Pi intriges me and the primes , I work about this also in my model, I have never published my theory but I evolve with the spherical topological geometric algebras. What you explained intrigues me to go from the universal sphere towards the multipheres and this idea of copies of ourself.
There are paradoxes about the infinite ensembles implying theoretical challenges. And it iintrigues me about the consciousness and the copy of ourself because we have the free will and the psychology and intelligence to consider inside these infinities extrapolated implying the identical copies, that is why we can even go farer if we reach these copies in considering the free will and choices and the present and future.
It must be be difficult all this and I don t speak about the measurement problem and this time .....
I looked at the Boltzmann brain problem , and the quantum fluctuations and when we correlate with the entropy and memories and informations and encodings, it is relevant even ontologically in extrapolating possibilities about the origin of the universe, and if we extrapolate also the minds, souls, brains without asserting of course the assumptions. But it is interesting for the possible states. It could be extrapolated with the ideas of Tegmank and the multiverse and these infinities, but complex .

Ulla Mattfolk

Steve Dufourny
I see several questions here:

What is infinity in this case? It can even be a 0, so then we come back to ourself and our Earth? Are there more of us that can be EXACTLY like us in all aspects? Can + and - infinity loop back on themselves?
Manyworlds are seen as quantum, and then we have the no-copy theorem. It is not possible to find EXACTLY the same? It is even forbidden? Like I say the half is forbidden in measurement theory. It describes entanglement there... In topology we have the wormhole as such 'charge without a charge'....It seems we HAVE TO do things differently? This does not in principle change the result much, but it is principially important. Already on Earth we can find our identical twin, but these people are never exactly the same. This already on Earth alone...
Basically this is about the measurement problem. In manyworlds it is the collective that branch universe, in more normal theories we instead minimalize the options by the infamous 'collapse' or fusion. It is the subjectivity versus objectivity once again.
Regards, Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Now it is even possible to go farer after having reached the identical copy by this thought experiement in considering an infinity of identical copies, in adding so the present and futur for the choices and after we can add all the minds of the universe and the same logic and after we consider ontological possibilities with the consciousness and even the possible souls,Of course it is just mathematical extrapolations , thought experiements but interesting to extrapolate and to compare with a finite universe already very complex.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk
Hi Ulla,
it is a thought experiment, so it is pure maths and probabilities with different ontological origin. But it is interesting to better understand the universe and this uniqueness problem wich is for me essential. The measurement problem also is important and like you told subjectivity and objectivity are important also. Regards

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk In fact Ulla,. it is about the model chosen, its ontology, its boudaries and its mathematical and physical law. And the most important, why you exist, why you are probably unique,why you have a local reality and why you are conscious and from whatontologically speaking , that is why the boudaries are important. That is why these thought experiments are relevant to rank and chose the good one to better understand the observable universe and its quantum, cosmological, physical, mathematical and ontological laws . It is about possible and impossible realities. The infinity is a parameter complex but maybe more simple than we imagine.

Steve Dufourny

In fact at my humble opinion, even if they are thought experiments and assertions , it is interesting to better understand the finite universe and its complexity.
The thought experiment of Anthony Aguirre and the ideas I explained permits to better understand our philophical limit even and to analyse a thing I named the uniqueness problem and so the extrapolations about infinities could permit to better understand the impossibilities ontological. We go in fact from a single unique copy to a second one and after to an infinite ensemble of copies and in considering the present and future and the choicves and fater in considering all the minds of the universe , and possible souls because matter and energy cannot be destroyed, o we reach interesting analysis about the philosophy of the mind. In my model I consider this 0D omnipotent infinite eternal consciousness and we express a finite part of consciousness with our physical bodies. So in extrapolating these infinite possibilities with the maths, probabilities, statistics and in considering a dynamic temporal line , it is relevant for the ontological choices and the rankings.
The many worlds can permit so to better understand the possible and impossible extrapolations if we take the uniqueness problem I explained. The 3D space for me is important. But how to consider the decoherences of brain copies .....and the free , choices and consciousness . What about the encoding of informations and how to consider the souls in these precise extrapolations.
An interesting points now is about the collective universal consciousness and the problem of uniqueness and in adding this 0D infinite eternal omnipotent consciousness. How to consider the mind space continuum and this 0D so . So how to consider the finite configurations and the infinity in resume. If the mind states exist as a physical reality , so how to consider all the thought experiments and the infinity. It is intriguing about this actual observable universe and its more than 2000 billions of glaxies and all the possible minds evolving. The evolution is important at mu humble opinion.
That implies ontological possibi
lities about the consciousness, the identity, the uniqueness problem and the concept of soul. All this is metaphysics of course because we don t know but it is interesting to extrapolate.
The identity is a main problem even in extrapolating these infinite identical copies in a space location., Finite, or infinite , both are complex , so if we imagine spatial infinities and the infinite copies , all this is more than complex, that is why I spoke about the possible extrapolations and impossible ones , it ios about the chosen ontology in fact. In all casesl these thought experiments are interesting for the critical function in our theoretical physics. That permit to test the boundaries and to better understand the inflation and infinities. We must test, bridge the physics,the philosophy and this consciousness is important and the meaning of local reality and this problem of uniqueness. The ontology chosem, universal sphere, 0D , quantum spheres or strings, mathematical accidet, or a god os spinozza like einstein said , an unique universe or a multiverse, finite or infinite and how .......we don t know but we can extrapolate.

Ulla Mattfolk

Does divergence have a limit? Can we add to the infinity?
It is more productive to focus on convergence, I think. What makes a universe more simple?
/Ulla.

Steve Dufourny

Ulla Mattfolk

what you ask is difficult to answer because we don t know this truth, it is simpler when we consider an unique universe and the unique creations. The complexity arises with the parameters added an possibilities with maths and the correlated extrapolations.

How to consider these mathematical analysis and the simplicity for the quantum mechanic, the thermodynamic, the cosmology, the evolution......and this ontology furthermore. If we take the maths , the divergence is without finite limit, there is no boudary. If we take physics and the BH singularities , we have infinite energy and it seems odd for me or the infinite mass in quantum theory , it seems odd also. We can renormalize with boundaries like lenght, or others , it permits to stop these divergences instead to destroy the structures.

Can we add infinity , ask to Cantor, lol for the sets chosen , in logic yes but physivally it is an other problem. The boudaries seem important and the laws inside the system chosen. The measure problem is important and how we consider the paradoxes. So we return at this ontology chosen, so the subjectivity and objectivity. I beleive you are right for the convergences , they are more productive to understand how this reality operates. It is about order , stability instead of noises for the energy and informtions. Maths and physics can converge but of course we don t know the real universal truth and the boudaries we must choose.

What can me an universe more simple,it is universally at my opinion generally very simple like in my theory and these spheres, because all converges , the spherical geometry minimizes ontologically the wastes , we can evenm tell that the sphere is the ultimate physical convergence. That permits for the universe even to minimize the tensions, the gravitational potential , the informations, the encodings , the sortings, .....And it is there that the uniqueness problem becomes relevant ontologically speaking and the unique conscious observers, lifes, planets, atoms because in my theory of spherisation, the optimisation is essential and the universe seems like this for its efficiency.
Regards

Ulla Mattfolk

Gödel had a closed timelike loop, as instance... a rotating universe. What we don't know is if evolution is linear or spiral.
/Ulla.

JDLaw27

Ulla Mattfolk

I am much more of a "continuum" kind of intuitor. In a continuum there is no nothing because approaching nothing is asymptotical (pretty sure that's the word, no AI used in this comment). Also, there is no infinite space or infinite combination. Again asymptotical in the continuum. And yes, this version of contiuum (my version) is very much Gödelian and Zermelo Fraenkel logic. It provides a completely different "something from nothing" when the only something is a relationship and the only nothing is a something drawing a blank on the relationship.

I get that my words sound "out there" but give it a chance. The "delta nonzero" law of being is solid math. Incompleteness leads only to these conclusions. Incompleteness is the "gift" and not the "glitch."

Ulla Mattfolk

JDLaw27
Everettian State Space Expansion: If Everett's branching expands infinitely without a physical collapse, the number of orthogonal branches grows as 2^N. However, if the underlying information capacity (or entropy bound) of a region of spacetime is finite (as dictated by the Bekenstein-Hawking bound, S_max = A/4 G \hbar, the state space is not infinite—it is compact.
Reflection as Time: Trajectories hitting the "wall" of a compact state space cannot escape. By the Poincaré Recurrence Theorem, a system evolving continuously in a compact phase space must eventually return arbitrarily close to its initial configuration. The infinite branching "reflects back" not as new space, but as temporal recurrence or cyclic loops.

In all these cases, infinity is not an open-ended runaway process; it acts as a topological constraint. When an evolving continuum hits its geometric or physical capacity limit, the forward explosion converts into a closed, stable, time-bounded state.
/Ulla.

Jiaqing Yan

https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.22646602

Galaxy Rotation Curve Conundrum The Ultimate Solution
— Chain Gravitational Coupling Abolishes the Dark Matter Framework

Author: Jiaqing Yan
Affiliation: Independent Researcher in Theoretical Physics

Abstract
The galaxy rotation curve conundrum has been a core fundamental paradox plaguing modern astrophysics for a century. Astronomical observations confirm that the orbital speed of stars in the outer regions of spiral galaxies does not decay with increasing orbital radius, in direct contradiction to predictions derived from traditional central mass gravitational dynamics. To resolve the conflict between theory and observation, mainstream academia has long adopted the hypotheses of dark matter and dark energy. It introduces hypothetical gravitational mass to fix model defects and maintain the internal consistency of conventional galactic dynamics.
Rejecting the century old erroneous framework dominated by central mass dynamics, this paper applies core physical reasoning from the Light Origin Theory and constructs a standardized one dimensional radial stellar gravitational chain model. Based on Newton’s inverse square law of universal gravitation, multiple precise quantitative calculations are performed to quantify the magnitude gap between the distant gravitational force from the galactic centre and the superimposed chain gravity of nearby stars in outer galactic regions. This paper fully reproduces the derivation process and core fallacy of traditional dynamics, and accurately explains the origin of the more than 90 percent gravitational mass deficit reported in literature.
Quantitative results clearly demonstrate that the orbital binding force acting on outer galaxy stars does not come from the mass concentration at the galactic centre one hundred thousand lightyears away. Instead, it originates from the superimposed short range chain gravitational coupling effect of neighbouring stars in outer galactic zones. Traditional dynamics completely ignores this objectively existing local short range gravitational effect. It artificially creates an apparent stellar acceleration deficit, which further gives rise to the empirically unsubstantiated dark matter and dark energy hypotheses. Combined with rigid observational constraints from steady spiral galaxy arm structures, this work completely resolves the galaxy rotation curve conundrum. From the perspectives of underlying physical mechanism, quantitative numerical calculation and astronomical observational facts, it permanently removes the theoretical necessity for dark matter and dark energy. A new selfconsistent, reproducible galactic dynamics system compatible with classical physical laws is established.
Keywords:
galaxy rotation curve; inverse square law of universal gravitation; chain gravitational coupling; decay of galactic centre gravity; steady state spiral arm structure; dark matter; dark energy; dynamical model fallacy

Introduction
Since its establishment, the galactic dynamics system of modern astrophysics has relied on an untested core assumption. The centripetal orbital force for all stars within a galaxy is entirely supplied by the long range gravitational force of mass concentrated at the galactic centre. Combining this assumption with the law of universal gravitation, we would predict that stellar orbital speed decreases as orbital radius increases, following the speed decay pattern of planets in the Solar System.
Highprecision modern astronomical observations contradict this theoretical prediction. For all steady spiral galaxies, the orbital speed of outer region stars remains nearly constant without the theoretically expected speed drop. This phenomenon is defined as the galaxy rotation curve conundrum.
Faced with sharp conflicts between theoretical deduction and astronomical observation, mainstream academia did not reflect on logical defects in the underlying model. Instead, it adopted compromise revisions. It introduced dark matter and dark energy, components that cannot be directly observed or experimentally verified, to artificially fill the gravitational mass deficit and preserve the flawed traditional dynamical framework.
This research paradigm contains fundamental and disruptive logical errors. Conventional theory overstates the gravitational effect of total galactic mass. It ignores the inverse square distance decay property of gravitation and the strong local short range chain gravitational coupling among stars in outer galactic regions. Treating weak long range central gravity as the dynamical core and discarding real dominant local gravitational sources creates a spurious cosmic mass deficit paradox.
Adopting the rigorous research method of classical physical thought experiment, this paper sets aside secondary interfering factors including twodimensional disc geometry, galactic thickness and interstellar medium. A minimal one dimensional radial stellar gravitational chain model is built. Through precise quantitative calculation to quantify gravitational magnitude differences at different radii, and drawing on observational facts of steady state galactic spiral arms, this work systematically falsifies traditional galactic dynamics as well as dark matter and dark energy hypotheses. A new galactic dynamics theory based on chain gravity is established.
Model Construction and Standard Parameters
The thoughtexperiment model strictly follows classical physical laws. Redundant secondary variables are removed without modifying or violating any fundamental physical laws. Simplification serves only to focus on core dynamical mechanisms and does not alter qualitative or quantitative conclusions.
Standard parameter settings:
Equivalent core mass of the galactic centre: 4×10⁶ solar masses;
Target object for observation: a single outer boundary star of one solar mass;
Radial distance from galactic centre to target outer star: 100000 lightyears; Arrangement rule for radial stellar chain: adjacent stars are uniformly spaced at 4 lightyears; all stars have one solar mass.
Notation: M⊙ denotes solar mass, 1 M⊙ = 1.989×10³⁰ kg.
All distance values are double checked using both lightyear and metre units to guarantee reproducible computational results.
Gravitational force exerted by the galactic centre on the target outer star serves as the reference baseline. The gravitational multiple contributed by each inner neighbouring star is calculated sequentially.
1st neighbouring star (separation 4 ly): gravity = 156.25 × galactic centre gravity
2nd neighbouring star (separation 8 ly): gravity = 39.06 × galactic centre gravity
3rd neighbouring star (separation 12 ly): gravity = 17.36 × galactic centre gravity
4th neighbouring star (separation 16 ly): gravity = 9.77 × galactic centre gravity
5th neighbouring star (separation 20 ly): gravity = 6.25 × galactic centre gravity
Gravitational contributions from the 6th to 12th stars keep decreasing. Each of the first 12 neighbouring stars produces stronger gravity than the galactic centre.
The summed gravitational force of these first 12 effective neighbouring stars equals 244.5 times the galactic centre gravity. The galactic centre contribution to the total local gravitational field at the outer location accounts for less than 0.5 percent, and is physically negligible.
Including more inner stars only moderately raises total gravitational values, which amounts to finetuning of quantitative parameters. It does not overturn the core qualitative conclusion: outerregion dynamics are dominated by local neighbouringstar chain gravity, while longrange galacticcentre gravity plays a secondary role. Adding realistic complex structures only increases computational complexity and cannot refute the physical logic of this model.
Hypothetical Traditional Calculation: All Galactic Stellar Mass Concentrated at the Galactic Centre
For a mathematically favourable reference for the traditional central gravity model, a purely hypothetical calculation is performed. Physically it is impossible to gather all MilkyWay stellar mass into a single point at the galactic centre. This calculation serves only for magnitude comparison and does not represent a realworld physical scenario.
Total stellar mass of the MilkyWay: Mgal = 6×10¹⁰ solar masses, counting visible stellar material only. Assume all this mass collapses into a pointlike galactic centre, and compute gravity at the 100000 lightyear outer radius.
Universal gravitation formula:
Fgal = G × Mgal × M⊙ ÷ R²
Where R equals 100000 lightyears, and the distance from the nearest neighbour star to the target star is Rs equals 4 lightyears. Take the force ratio comparing the gravity from the hypothetical concentrated total mass against the gravity from the nearest outer star: F1 ÷ Fgal = (M⊙ ÷ Mgal) × (R² ÷ Rs²)
Substitute values:
R/Rs =25000; R²/Rs² =6.25×10⁸
F1/Fgal = (1 ÷ (6×10¹⁰)) × 6.25×10⁸ ≈0.0104
Fgal/F1 ≈96.2
Calculation result: under this fictitious scenario most favourable to traditional theory, the gravitational force produced by all MilkyWay stellar mass concentrated at the centre is merely 96.2 times the gravitational pull of a single neighbouring solarmass star in the outer zone.
In reality MilkyWay stars are diffusely distributed across the galactic disc rather than piled at the central point. Consequently the true gravitational component pointing toward the galactic centre at outer radii is significantly lower than this hypothetical result. Even granting maximum hypothetical favour to the traditional model, longrange gravity from the centre cannot overwhelm the superimposed chain gravity of nearby outerzone stars.
Reproducing Acceleration Derivation of Traditional Dynamics and Its Inherent Fallacy
The core premise of traditional dynamics: the centripetal force for outer stars in circular orbit is entirely provided by longrange universal gravitation from mass concentrated at the galactic centre.
Gravitational force acting as centripetal force:
G × M × m ÷ R² = m × a
Cancel the mass m of the test star to obtain theoretical centripetal acceleration: atheory = G × M ÷ R²
Relation between centripetal acceleration and orbital speed for circular motion:
a = v² ÷ R
Substitute constants. Adopt the hypothetical case where all galactic mass is concentrated at the centre: M=Mgal=6×10¹⁰ solar masses, orbital radius R=100000 lightyears =9.461×10²⁰ metres. Theoretical acceleration under this hypothetical condition: atheory ≈ 8.90×10¹² m/s²
Take typical observed orbital speed for outer MilkyWay stars: vobs=200 km/s =2.0×10⁵ m/s. The centripetal acceleration demanded by observation is: aobs = vobs² ÷ R ≈4.23×10¹¹ m/s²
Acceleration ratio: atheory ÷ aobs ≈0.210
Even under this fictitious bestcase assumption with all mass concentrated at the centre, theoretical acceleration reaches only 21.0 percent of the acceleration required by observation, corresponding to a dynamical deficit of 79.0 percent.
Notes on the 90 percent95 percent large gravitationalmass deficit cited in literature:
The 21 percent value above is the upper theoretical limit under the “allmassatcentre” assumption. Abandoning this artificial favour and adopting the real diffuse disclike mass distribution of the MilkyWay, the central contribution to acceleration at outer radii falls further to only a few percent, expanding the dynamical deficit above 90 percent.
Many observational samples come from dwarf galaxies and lowsurfacebrightness galaxies. Such galaxies have intrinsically low visible stellar mass yet still exhibit flat rotation curves, yielding mass deficits up to 90 percent95 percent. These extreme samples are frequently quoted in popular science literature, hence the widespread statement of a 95 percent deficit.
Conventional astronomy introduces corrections for nuclear bulge and disc mass stratification. Nevertheless, the whole computational framework only counts gravitational contributions originating from the galacticcentre direction, completely ignoring local chaingravitational coupling of nearby stars on the scale of several lightyears in outer galactic regions.
The full traditional derivation reveals a striking logical flaw: researchers neglect objectivelyexisting shortrange stellar gravitational effects, artificially creating a huge acceleration deficit, and then invoke dark matter and dark energy to fill modelgenerated theoretical loopholes. Physical contradictions do not originate from the cosmos; they arise from major omissions within the model itself.
Centripetal acceleration of celestial motion must correspond to real gravitational sources. Outerregion stars are surrounded by neighbouring stars whose shortrange gravitational magnitudes greatly exceed the longrange pull from the galactic centre one hundred thousand lightyears away. Traditional theory disregards this component and instead resorts to darkmatter and darkenergy hypotheses, departing from the physical principle of explaining dynamics via real physical entities.
Kinematic Constraints for SteadyState SpiralArm Galaxies
For longlived steady spiral galaxies, spiralarm structures impose rigid kinematic constraints: in a steadystate galaxy, the orbital speed of outerzone celestial bodies must be lower than the orbital speed of their immediately adjacent inner neighbours.
Orbital speed for circular motion is determined by the strength of gravitational sources. If outerzone bodies orbited faster than their immediate inner neighbours, local nearby gravity would be insufficient for confinement; bodies would escape outwards and spiralarm structures would distort and disintegrate. The large number of longlived wellordered spiral galaxies in the universe proves these systems are in steadystate motion.
Stellar explosions, collisions and external gravitational perturbations can temporarily impart extra initial velocity and produce local kinematic anomalies. These belong to transient special events and cannot explain the longterm stable spiralarm structures of countless spiral galaxies; they lie outside the scope of steadystate galacticdynamics discussion. One should not use rare perturbation cases to account for universally stable cosmic structures.
Within the chaingravitationalcoupling picture of this paper, outerzone bodies are bound via gravitational relay from surrounding nearby stars. So long as outerzone bodies move slightly slower than their immediate inner neighbours, spiral arms can persist stably, yielding a selfconsistent qualitative explanation.
Model Robustness
The onedimensional radial stellar gravitationalchain model is a thoughtexperiment with reasonable simplifications, removing secondary factors such as twodimensional disc geometry, galactic thickness and interstellar medium. Simplification does not mean altering physical laws; core physical logic remains robust.
Incorporating all remaining galactic stars and complex disc structures would only moderately raise gravitational values, representing finetuning of quantitative parameters. It cannot overturn the core qualitative conclusion that outerregion dynamics are dominated by local neighbouringstar chain gravity while longrange galacticcentre gravity remains weak. The inversesquare decay of gravity over a hundredthousandlightyear distance is an objective physical law and cannot be eliminated by increasing total mass.
The traditional assumption of centralmassdominated dynamics fails both under the fictitious massconcentration hypothesis and under the real diffusemass distribution of the MilkyWay.
Conclusions
The dominant binding gravitational force for outergalaxy stars originates from superimposed chaingravity of neighbouring stars in outer galactic zones. Although the galactic centre possesses enormous stellar mass, its gravitational contribution to outerzone stars is extremely low and physically negligible due to inversesquare decay over one hundred thousand lightyears.
Gravitational strength depends jointly on mass and the square of distance. Largescale mass concentration at extreme distances cannot govern outergalaxy dynamics. Local shortrange gravity can overwhelm gravity originating from a distant central mass.
Rigid constraints from steadystate spiralarm structures require that, under normal conditions, outerzone bodies orbit more slowly than their immediate inner neighbours. Transient events such as stellar explosions and collisions cannot explain universally steady galactic structures.
The socalled galaxy rotationcurve conundrum originates from the omission of objectivelyexisting local chaingravitational coupling among outerregion stars within traditional dynamical models, which generates a spurious acceleration deficit. Selfconsistent explanation of galactic dynamics is achieved without introducing dark matter or dark energy.
Relying on Newton’s inversesquare law of universal gravitation, together with quantitative calculation and astronomical observational facts, this paper exposes fallacies in the underlying assumptions of traditional galactic dynamics and establishes an interpretative approach for galactic dynamics based on chaingravitational coupling.

References
[1]Yan, J. 2026. Zenodo. Light Origin Theory, CERN preprint. ORCID:0009000521855790
[2]Binney, J., Tremaine, S. (2008). Galactic Dynamics. Princeton University Press.
[3] Sofue, Y., Rubin, V. C. (2001). Rotation curves of spiral galaxies. Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics.