Alternative Models of Cosmology

Rudiger, you could explain all what you have told me by mails , regards

Hi Steve Dufourny, Just wanted to thank you in public for referring me to this group.

THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2,

where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

THE 'HUBBLE TENSION': HOMOGENEITY AT A DIFFERENT LEVEL

There are two accurate means of measuring the Hubble parameter that have been diverging over the years. This has caused a crisis in cosmology for various reasons. However it is possible that both means / collaborator groups are correct as stands, and pointing to the Hubble parameter as an acceleration rather than a velocity/distance, as follows. One group measures about Ho= 73 km/s per Mpc, and the other about Ho = 68 km/s per Mpc. The latter group is looking further back in time and space than the other. If both groups are correct, they cannot be correct at the same time. Assuming constant acceleration:

A = [(73 km/s)^2 - (68 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 8.5 x 10^-14 m/s^2.

Alternatively, A = [(70 km/s)^2 - (0 km/s)^2] / 2 Mpc = 7.9 x 10^-14 m/s^2, where 70 km/s is a rough average and 0 km/s is with reference to an observer on Earth. Both values are similar in this random sampling, and amount to describing the Hubble parameter as an acceleration. This conforms with the observation that the Universe is accelerating, and suggests the acceleration is similar throughout the visible Universe, and that the Hubble parameter, while possibly an acceleration, is an unchanged value throughout the visible Universe -- or that current observational evidence indicates that THE ACCELERATION OF THE UNIVERSE IS EVERYWHERE AND EVERYWHEN THE SAME. Therefore, rather than a conflict in measurements, the difference might be pointing to a homogeneity at a different level.

lnkd.in/e3wQKBF

Hello Mr Frisina, you are welcome. You are going to like this platform I believe, there are a lot of informations and you can share your ideas and discuss. Best Regards

I ask me how to unify at this cosmological scale, the evolution spherisation of my theory with the past , present, future and the atomic gravitational constant, the classical one, the number of Avogadro, the Boltzmann constant , the GR , the quantum gravitation, the Dark matter cold, the Dark energy for the space vacuum and main codes and the 3D spheres. The magnitudes are important and this evolution also , the redshift and the light emissions also but how to sort the things and how to superimpose the two other ethers ?

In my model of spherisation, I see in a simplistic vue, the cosmological scale and the quantum scale with these spheres a little bit the same , of course with volumes, motions and properties different but there is like a link probably.

So that implies a relevant idea I beleive about the quantum scale and the cosmological scale, if my reasoning is correct and that we have these 3 main series merging to create the ordinary matter , with the codes in the space vacuum of the DE and the DM cold for the mass and gravitation and the photons for the electromagnetism, so we have a relative same logic at this comsological scale, that is why I thought about these supermassive BHs central to galaxies, they are probably kinds of stars of dark energy. It seems relevant considering the properties antigravitational of the DE , and also that implies deep questions philosophical if I can say. For the quantum scale, that implies also a fith force ....

I recently published a modified theory of gravity that I would like feedback on. My theory, the entropy scale factor, proposes that entropy causes time dilation and length dilation, and that these changes underly special relativity, gravity and the expansion of space.

As the relative velocity of objects increases there are more possible combinations of position and momentum within the moving frame due to the uncertainty principle. This increase in possible microstates represents an increase in entropy, which can be correlated with the time dilation and length dilation of Lorentz transformations.

My paper goes on to show how these changes in scale would result in gravity, and how space would expand as the entropy of the universe increases.

My theory was recently published in Physics Essays. Please visit their site or my homepage for more information and a link to the manuscript. Thank you in advance for your expertise and advice.

May I suggest a paper published last month in "International Journal of Astronomy, Space Sciences and Cosmology" called "Intergalactic Travel, Riemann Hypothesis, Dark Matter, No Big Bang and Other Physics/Mathematics" (link is Intergalactic).

I hesitated to send this since you might not accept suggested papers by a paper's author. However it does offer a scientifically plausible paradigm-shift to many areas of science, including the shift to quantum determinacy where probability is merely superficial and the quantum world follows the Chaos principle of order hidden within seeming disorder (Max Tegmark's mathematical universe is vital here), and the basing of proposed intergalactic travel on an electrical-engineering experiment at Yale University (reported in the journal "Nature Photonics" in 2009). Resulting from quantum certainty is a detailed explanation of why Einstein's time dilation is accurate.

More details - such as immersion of Klein bottles in the 3rd dimension - are in the preprint which I developed from this paper - "Intergalactic Travel and Riemann Hypothesis - featuring Dark Matter, Dark Energy, Higgs Boson, Higgs Field, Electroweak Interaction, No Big Bang, Plus Other Physics and Mathematics". Zenodo

Hi,

I work with an alternative to a cosmology with only a physical universe. With some universes the origins of the physical universe becomes less complicated. The mathematical universe would be an equal to the physical universe. I have discussed the basis for this view in (https://doi.org/10.1007/s11406-016-9791-y). In short the key to the coexistence of a mathematical universe and a physical universe is cosmological interfaces, or, phrased differently, ontologically heterogeneous domains.

The underlying basic principle is that an ontologically homogeneous domain does not cause an ontologically homogeneous domain. By this device all ontologically homogeneous domains are causally closed in relation to other ontologically homogeneous domains. Ontologically heterogeneous domains, on the other hand, are permitted to cause and to be caused by ontologically homogeneous domains. Consecutive ontologically homogeneous domains could be the platonic mathematical universe, the physical universe and ourselves as subjects.

I will deliver an online talk in August where I briefly note that self consciousness can be construed as a heterogeneous domain. I focus, however, the possibility that a black hole singularity can be viewed as a heterogeneous domain between a mathematical and a physical universe.

Talk: Self-consciousness and Black Hole Singularities - a Formal Link. Online lecture August 5, 15.00-17.00 CET.

Link:

Join Zoom Meeting

https://zoom.us/j/3611348321?pwd=TjZUUC9yNFBLMWdNejRBMzIyVEh2Zz09

Meeting ID: 361 134 8321

Passcode: j1m7rU

The best,

Johan Gamper

The independent institute of applied metaphysics

Subrosa KB (https://karlpu.org)

Vendelsö, Sweden

My preprint "The Beginning to the End of the Universe and Eternal Space-time " is available at:

https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202207.0121/v3

In this manuscript I explained the brief history of the universe from the beginning to the end of the Universe. My research suggests that the universe will not continue to expand forever, no need however, for dark energy. The theory of eternal Space-time and it consists of unique properties, which enables us to describe a sequence of events from the Big Bang to the Big Crunch. It appears that we now have two disparate possibilities: It could be that our universe is cyclic and no beginning; there may have been Big Bangs before ours, and a universe with a definite beginning. The ultimate arbiter will be Nature.

Currently, this model is best understood by pictures rather than a large number of equations.

universe is eternal

Don t you see that the universe shows us the truths and that these 3D quantum spheres in a fluidity are probably the foundamental objects instead of strings or points in 1D in this GR . The universe is only generally made of 3D cosmological spheres and this shape is not like the others, there is no angle, it is the perfect equilibrium of forces, it permits the best motions, they can be deformed with the symplectomorphisms, it seems thay are the choice primary of this universe , it is the meaning of my theory of spherisation , an optimisation evolution of the universal sphere or future sphere with quantum and cosmological 3D spheres. The spherical topological geometrical algebras, the tool that I have invented , it is for this general theory.......

Dear Qspace,

My preprint "Bee Theory : Wave-Based Modeling of Gravity" is available for review at :

https://wiki.collaborativebee.com/images/0/06/20231226_BeeTheory_v2_EN.pdf

In this article, I identify that gravity is directly linked with the summation of ondular equation of particules.
I am please looking for a mathematical review of page 14, in the case of 2 particules with wavefunction of exp -r.

I would be pleased to receive comments and review on this article.

Thanks for your math help.

Best Regards,

Xavier

Hi everyone,
I'm writing to you today to share my scientific speculation, which I've published on my website: 4-Sphere Cosmology

Speculative Framework and Cosmological Context

This theoretical exploration focuses on Galactic Recession, though the cosmological nature of the model necessitates engagement with broader themes such as dark matter dynamics, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) anisotropies, and related phenomena. These interdisciplinary connections were introduced to rigorously test whether the proposed framework, under its foundational hypotheses, would lead to physically or observationally inconsistent scenarios.
To address these challenges, the model incorporates necessary assumptions that remain purely conjectural (see for example the page: The 4-Sphere Metric Tensor. Nevertheless, the cornerstone of this speculation lies in its alignment with Hubble’s Law and the empirical validation of stellar distance measurements. These elements serve as critical anchors to ensure consistency with established observational constraints.

Invitation for Feedback

I would love to hear your thoughts. Instead of reading the full essay, I recommend checking out the short pages on the site, which provide a concise summary of the key ideas.
However, the critical point remains in (see the essay):

1. What is written about the Apparent magnitude in Appendix 1
2. What about the Time dilation in Appendix 2
3. What about the resulting supernova distance in Appendix 3

If errors are present in these areas, this theory is falsified.

Error reports, constructive criticism, and scholarly dialogue are warmly encouraged.

request for help from astronomers

Here to validate my findings, I compare luminosity distances calculated from redshift (z) and distance modulus (μ). For my analysis, I believe it is critical to retain the approach outlined in Astrophysical Journal Letters v.413, p.L105 - The Absolute Magnitudes of Type IA Supernovae . This method is not only accessible due to its reliance on widely available computational tools but, more importantly, it avoids the need for K-corrections during the initial sample selection phase. This ensures that results remain independent of any assumed cosmological model.
To conduct further validations, I need to explore the data from JWST, particularly its redshifted filters. For example, for a supernova at z = 1.0, the B-band (≈450 nm) would be redshifted to 900 nm, meaning I should use the F090W filter. The challenge now is finding the necessary observational data that describe the explosion and decay phases of some supernova, ideally including comparison stars. The V-band should also be useful for this analysis.
Searching on MAST Mikulski Archive for Space Telescopes becomes extremely challenging when formulating a generic query without knowing the target name (I struggled to identify a suitable supernova for my purposes).
So, I’d like to ask astronomers: Have JWST observations been conducted to capture the decay curves of Type Ia supernovae, specifically starting no later than maximum brightness and extending for at least 20 days post-maximum?

Key questions:

1. Is this method for deriving absolute magnitudes still valid, or is it considered outdated?
2. Can such data (light curves meeting the criteria above) be found in publicly accessible databases like MAST or others? How can I find them?

Dear forum members,
Following my previous thread error, I'm returning with a new proposal: a synthesis of various sources (based on a hypersphere-type model) designed for a clear and effective presentation.

It is encouraging to see how much interest the topic "hypersphere" is generating. Let's remember that, although Einstein proposed a static model in 1917, the idea of a spatially closed, finite, and boundless universe is historically linked to his work.
This idea, with such illustrious origins, has been revisited by many since. However, I think it's important to emphasize that all the models I've seen differ substantially from one another. Therefore, rather than focusing on the idea that unites them, I believe it's crucial to examine the descriptions that distinguish them.

In this spirit, I would like to present a model concerning Galactic Recession that I have developed. Its complexity and the references to arXiv publications (which I cannot summarize here) do not allow for a detailed description in this space.
The introduction of my research was uploaded on viXra as PDF. The latest version of the document

A new perspective on Hubble's law through a four-dimensional spatial model: 4-Sphere-Cosmology

is always freely available to everyone, after you click the link: [viXra:2504.0144], on the viXra page (Download are free and require no registration; at the time of writing, all other cited documents, most of them from arXiv, are also freely accessible).

That's the thing:
The recent observational capabilities of the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST) are opening new windows into the early universe, revealing distant galaxies whose apparent rapid formation poses significant questions to the standard ΛCDM cosmological model. Observations of galaxies at redshifts above 14 (see JADES-GS-z14-0), implying extremely old ages according to current FLRW metric-based distance assumptions, might stimulate a thorough reflection on fundamental cosmological principles. Will it be possible to explain all this without violating Hubble's law? But really, does violating the FLRW metric necessarily imply a violation of Hubble's law?

The Big Bang theory remains a robust and widely accepted paradigm. Nevertheless, any of its potential modifications could have profound implications for related fields, including Quantum Field Theory. This raises a fundamental question: is there a basic aspect that needs a conceptual revision? Although ΛCDM has achieved remarkable successes, many of its validations implicitly assume the FLRW metric. Could this dependence potentially introduce circular reasoning into model verification?

In this work, an alternative approach to the phenomenon of Galactic Redshift is proposed, offering a possible pathway for a careful modification of the ΛCDM model through the adoption of a non-FLRW metric. In this scenario, the Universe resides on the surface of a hypersphere expanding at a constant rate, with a radius growing as r = ct and with the Big Bang located at its center. This would explain why our physics manifests as if we were in a boundless system, despite the Universe having a finite volume: it suggests that, in the absence of Relativity, we would likely have been led to study an infinite and static universe.

While other models propose a hypersphere expanding with r = ct, an analysis of their main features reveals fundamental differences. The novelty of the model presented here lies in its definition of the Hubble constant: its geometry suggests a linear relationship between galactic recession and the arc angle (not the arc length). This perspective does not contest the validity of Hubble’s law, but introduces different predictions about the past and the future, which cannot be determined solely from current observations.

The use of the angle instead of the arc length produces significant implications, opening the possibility of applying Special Relativity to galactic recession. The redshift, which asymptotically approaches a time horizon of roughly 5 billion years after the Big Bang, implicitly explains why, at the boundaries of the observable Universe with JWST, we should not expect to see only "baby galaxies".

Specifically, the 4-Sphere framework, often considered part of alternative cosmologies, could potentially be reconciled with the Standard Model. Based on supernova distance measurements, I suggest that the dismissal of a Doppler-type redshift interpretation for Galactic Recession might warrant further and careful reconsideration.