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 ?
Alternative Models of Cosmology
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
I can understand and I respect your point of vue, but there still we cannot affirm. The universe can be a finite universe evolving in 3D and a time correlated with the motions. And now we arrive at this philosophy, I consider an infinite eternal consciousness in 0D like main primary energy and this thing that we cannot define has decided to create like a project for me, so the infinity and eternity are things that we must relativise it seems to me, we arrive still at this primary essence inside the physicality, if you consider that we had for example like god an infinite heat and it was conscious and that this things has fractalised this heat in creating these photons and that after with the GR it oscillates these photons at this planck scale with points or strings in 1D for exapmple and with the mass energy equivalence , so that explains the mass but all this are assumptions and it is there that we interpret philosophically the eternity and infinity correlated inside this physicality like linked like an illuison with the 3D universe and its motions and this irreversible time, all is a question of interpretations ontological ,epistemological, philosophical , we cannot affrim to know the truth due to these said limitations that I explained, we are all persuaded to understand the universe and its origin but we d be very surprised if we knew the real truth.Regards
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):
- What is written about the Apparent magnitude in Appendix 1
- What about the Time dilation in Appendix 2
- 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:
- Is this method for deriving absolute magnitudes still valid, or is it considered outdated?
- Can such data (light curves meeting the criteria above) be found in publicly accessible databases like MAST or others? How can I find them?