Dear Emmanouil,

in the second option that you present, would time and space have existed there prior to this multi-singularities "phase transition" which you propose?

Thank you,

Julius

So, an ad hoc addition to the Big Bang model is troubled by observation. The ad hoc suggestions around the problems only add to the fundamental problem. However, your second proposal is a valiant attempt to keep the Big Bang.

Emmanouil Markoulakis I agree with your conclusion about the JWST results impacting on the horizon problem.

I would go further in saying that the JWST results suggest we should question the Big Bang model itself. It seems impossible that from a primordial cloud of gas and dust that a fairly even distribution of stars could form and then clump together into galaxies with huge separation and nothing in between. The structure of galaxies with a central black hole, star distribution and dark matter halo suggests they formed in a different way.

The key to departing from the Big Bang theory is to recognise that the CMB is coming from radiating matter held at the event horizon of the universe.

https://youtu.be/muCa08hlIDc

Richard

There are certainly problems with Inflation, but the most plausible explanation of the origin of the Universe is the Dirac theory that any point in space-time can have any random energy, and although the vast majority of such space-time points would have a random energy close to zero, since there are 10 to the 37th to the 4th power space-time points on one cubic-meter-second of space-time, somewhere in even a region as small as the Observable Universe (meaning a nearly 14 billion-light-years' radius of space and an identical 14 billion years of time) there has almost certainly been at least one point in space-time which for just that instant had enough energy to create an entirely new Universe. (See "In The Beginning", at http://cseligman.com/text/prologue.htm )

The problem with that theory, though based on all known physics is sound, is that to go from a new Universe that consists of only a single space-time point to our Universe requires an expansion far faster than the speed of light; so IF your suggestion (1) is correct, that might work. However, (2) is almost certainly incorrect, as even if the Dirac theory is correct (and many experiments and observations do confirm it for energies sufficient to create "pair production"), the chances of numerous space-time points in extremely close contact in the original Universe from which ours presumably originated is vanishingly small. So although there are problems with Inflation Theory that may never be solved, I suspect that the problem with the JWST observations is simply that it was easier for galaxies to form in the early Universe than observations based on current conditions had suggested. Keep in mind that the interpretation of current observations is based on assumptions about the data that may be disproved by later observations, so that the problems will probably partly go away on their own with more study; but that since we never see the evolution of galaxies over any significant period of time, but only a single instant in the life of any given galaxy that we use to make suppositions (i.e., educated guesses) about how they evolve, the most likely answer is simply that nature is complex, and simple solutions to complex problems are almost always wrong.

Dear Julius Riese

Assuming that free space (i.e. perfect vacuum) is a type of "exotic" unknown energy its possible Planck sized or less quanta should vibrate then yes Cartesian space and time preexisted before the phase transition of this primordial vacuum but not as Einsteinian spacetime concept. Notice also in my hypothesis gravity was manifested as soon the first matter appeared therefore this preexisting vacuum had no spacetime curvature. Neverteheless, my theory predicts that free space is a superluminous energy and vacuum ZPE and ZPF is actually the generated relativistic noise radiation residue of this superluminous vacuum energy (i.e. hidden Dark Energy). The fact that this energy is superluminous at its non-phased transitioned state according to my theory is the exact reason that we perceive it as apparent "nothingness" of free space. Such an superluminous energy is photonically decoupled (however not gravitational) from Einsteinian Spacetime. However, in regions where the vibrational superluminous speed of vacuum energy drops at c or below then light and matter is created (i.e. phase transition).

Nevertheless, normal matter and light elementary particles can interact via this superluminous sublayer space domain at a distance producing non-local phenaomena like instantaneous quantum entanglement. Moreover, the relativistic vibrations noise of this superluminous energy is responsible for the Uncertainty principle of our quantum world observed and and also indetermenistc behavior of quantum particles but also its superluminal property is responsible for all the weird non-Lorentz invariant time effects we see in quantum physics like superposition of particles, QE, quantum tunneling and in general "spooky instantaneous action at a distance" which are all IMHO evidence for Superluminocity or else called Superluminality actually existing among isolated elementary particles interaction via virtual particles which are very real and directly connected to the superluminous vacuum (see Lamb shift and recent Fermilab g-2 muon 4.2σ results). I can present you with a formal analysis that shows that "virtual photons" (not to be confused with normal photons) are actually superluminal entities.

So, coming back to your question in this hypothsized preexisting primordial vacuum before its phase transition, yes spacetime time existed but not the Einsteinium spacetime. Actions taking place inside the superluminous spacetime as seen by an observer from an Einstenian spacetime would appear to the observer according to its relative position as instantaneous action at a distance at best and even as reverse causality effects.

Example assuming somewhere in space location A, a supernova occurs and far away (for reasons not important here) in location B the explosion is instantaneous mirrored.

Assuming the information propagated instantaneously from A to B location, an observer positioned exactly at the mid-distance between A and B would see the explosion happening simultaneously in A and B.

If the observer was closer at location A than location B he/she would see first the explosion happening in A and then in B.Therefore knowing previously that the real explosion has happened definitely in location A then he would say that causality was preserved. However if the observer was closer to location B he would see first the effect and then the cause (Eisensteinian causality was "apparently" broken). Therefore instantaneous action at a distance can cause "apparent" time reversal non-causality phenomena.

Of course all this is a nice story and has to be formulated.

More on this soon on my new paper that was accepted for Journal publication.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

I think what JWST is doing is removing our previous observation measurement bias with better observations and more complete measurements.

“…Inflation theory describing our observable universe all the way back from a single singularity inside nothingness and inflating multifold times at a tiny fraction of time at the beginning and therefore preserving uniform conditions and causality coherence of light afterwards at the recombination era, is strongly supported by CMB and the expansion of the universe observations….”

- yeah, that is so in mainstream cosmology, though looks as really scientific only in that is strongly supported by CMB and the expansion of the universe observations, though, while the rest in the quote is some points in the cosmology about which it knows fundamentally nothing, and the standard model in this case is based on only some transcendent, and really senseless, assumptions. Including that

“….However, latest James Webb space telescope discovery of 6 universe breaking galaxies although it is said to only affect our possible limited understanding of galaxies formation, IMHO brings deeper implications to the Inflation model itself and reopens the Cosmological Horizon problem. …..”

- is essentially correct, though what JWST saw/sees till now isn’t too different that was/is observed by Hubble telescope and rather numerous telescopes systems on Earth.

Now there exist only one really scientific 2017 cosmological model in framework of whole Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model , see section “Cosmology” in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

- where, including, there is no some strange “single singularity” inside some tooo strange “nothingness”.

Really the informational system “Matter” that practically for sure is based on a binary reversible logics, when “hardware” of the logics’s implementation is the ultimate base of Matter – the primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE], which compose the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice,

- which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct), where all dimensions are by the scientific definitions are infinite,

- was created in a few steps. The first step was creation of the first/primary FLE, at that “simultaneously automatically” in accordance with the scientific definitions of the absolutely fundamental phenomena/notions “Space” and “Time”, the spacetime above appeared.

Next step was the creating of the first version of the lattice – seems as programmed “division on 2” as that, say, happens when a bacteria colony spreads if there is food enough, and corresponding exponential spreading of the FLEs, what is in the mainstream the “inflation epoch”. In both, the first and second, steps there was no any singularities.

On 3-rd step yeah, a believable portion of energy was pumped very specifically in the lattice, when the Matter’s whole matter was created, but that wasn’t some “Big Bang” in a some “nothing point”, the lattice size wasn’t a point – as that seems rationally suggested in the standard model its size was only ~ 100 times lesser than ~ 40 billons of light years that are now. Etc., more see the link.

Cheers

Dear Emmanouil,

thank you very much, indeed, for your detailed explanations. I find your ideas around "superluminosity" very interesting in as far as you seem to be arguing that c appears constant to us, but actually isn't (if I understand you correctly) - thereby accounting for phenomena such as quantum entanglement that otherwise remain difficult to explain for "classical" physics. I am looking forward to your published paper on this. Please keep us posted.

Thanks,

Julius

Dear Julius Riese

Thanks. And here is as promised what few know that particle physicists put under the rag that shows that calculations of Lamb shift result actually to superluminous virtual photons which using some "tricks" are disguised in the theory presented in the literature. This act is just because is almost impossible for them to admit although it shows up in their calculations that there is something in nature that can move faster than light c. I agree that yes matter and light cannot but vacuum is neither of these two and does not translate necessarily to "nothingness". Vacuum IMO is faster than light:

http://www7b.biglobe.ne.jp/~kcy05t/qedlamb.html

(see eq. 47 in the above linked page)

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

Dear Courtney Seligman ,

Thank you for your expert input, suggestions and why my hypothesis (2) is wrong. Your arguements will be taken under serious consideration.

One point only. Yes I agree that JWST data possible also suggest that galaxies were formed in a much faster rate in the early universe but let us see the complete spectrographic data first of these galaxies of their much heavier and complex elements constitutes like carbon. Surely this hypothesized increased rate of matter creation the new data might suggest was for the initial gaseous formation of these galaxies but still not enough to form the heavier and more comblex elements within 500-600 million years!

If the new spectro data find these elements in more or less the same in average percentage with our galaxy and neigbour galaxies then inflation is in trouble. Because although inflation from a single singularity explains the causality coherence of the universe during creation set by the uniform rapid inflating vacuum space background we still have to wait for the photon field to arrive propagating at a much slower speed c in the expanding iniverse (expansion not to be confused with inflation) which strongly infers that timewise, matter formation of galaxies could not be uniform. Photon quantum field must be present before in order fermionic matter to be formed.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s. Variable speed of light assumption (1) I still find improper since only light speed limit c can form known normal matter. At higher than c limit speed matter cannot be formed, at least not in the form we know it today.

Courtney Seligman , Emmanouil Markoulakis

Very nice. But the support for any creation myth is its ability to evolve into observations today. As you mention, the Big Bang is in trouble. So, too is inflation. For example, infall of matter to form spiral galaxies is rejected by observation, but infall is suggested by Elliptical galaxies. So, how do your respective models solve the many observations that reject the Big Bang such as asymmetric rotation curves, periodic redshift, correlation of inner and outer spiral galaxies' parameters, etc..

I might also mention, ``superluminal'' does not imply instantaneous. There could be another speed limit out there. For example, sound transmits force, so to does light, why not another such as vacuum (aether, spacetime, plenum, etc.) waves. So, plenum waves may cause some matter movement (information) before light just as radio waves can cause a speaker to vibrate before the sound waves from the music reaches a listener.

Dear John Hodge ,

Since my theory predicts in average a smooth phase transition of a preexisitng vacuum space volume or else multiple more or less, simultaneously Big Bang singularities happening and inflating all over this vacuum space volume then this implies that the general characteristics of galaxies are in average qualitatively and quantitatively within their normal variation the same all over the observable universe comparing randomly different patches on the sky. Meaning that creation has not started from a single point but rather was initiated over the whole volume of a preexisting vacuum space and then start expanding (expansion not to be confused with inflation).

Therefore all galaxies in average should have been created the same time period thus having more or less the same absolute age but not necessarily the same maturity characteristics.

My hypothesis can easily be falsified depending the new currently collected data from the JWST.

Kind Regards,

Emmanouil

p.s. John I agree with your last paragraph in your comments about superluminal speeds but whatever our Universe's vacuum space medium concerns, quantum entanglement experiments have repeatedly shown that the non-local effects observed are instantaneous independent distance separation. Meaning that assuming there is actually a type of superluminal interaction taking place in the vacuum it is of such that it appears as instantaneous spooky action at a distance in our Einsteinian Spacetime controlled by the speed of our causality thus the speed of light c. Maybe this interaction taking place is so much insanely faster than c that is not measurable at all by our instruments over a vast range of distances giving the false impression of non-local effects instead of an actual superluminal interaction.

To All.

Presumably the depicted 6 so called "universe breaking galaxies" recently captured by JWST according to BB and inflation theory should be among the first galaxies formed and therefore among the youngest in our observable universe.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-distant-galaxies-early-results

Everyone seems wondering how they could have against our "established theories" predictions, formed so fast and evolved?

But are these among the youngest?

A phase transition in a preexisting vacuum space volume may have occurred simultaneously in many parts of space. In this sense, propagation does not imply propagation of information or propagation of any kind of wave or quantum field excitation. Galaxies are all more or less of the same absolute age in our observable universe although some may have matured faster than others depending local random conditions.

Emmanouil

Research Proposal Universe Creation in a Preexisting Free Space with Multiple ...

Emmanouil Markoulakis

We may be closer in a theory.

You seem to be watching JWST closer than I , so I'd be interested in your progress. The data that suggested a difference in spiral and elliptical galaxies comes from Binney & Merrifield ``Galactic Astronomy". They describe elliptical galaxies as have several characteristics of infalling matter and spiral galaxies as have outflowing matter. I had referenced the book in one of my previous papers. Finding that reference would take some time. So, can you accept this difference? If so, then your model should explain this difference.

Note: the QSSC model from which I started the STOE that I postulated Sinks and Sources. Also, So far the only difference between your model and QSSC seems to be the independent mini bangs. QSSC seems to assume the galaxies are sources - but not bang type but continuous even today with mini creation events (MCEs) (Narlikar writes on this in the arXiv).

The thing about speed of causation: van Flandern suggest the gravity causation travels millions of times the speed of light , but not instantaneous. The Aspect experiment and the de Sangro, et al. experiment also suggest causation at much faster than light, although it could be instantaneous.

Emmanouil Markoulakis

If all the galaxies are existent separately, then the observation of light from distant galaxies being as if emitted on earth (our Galaxy) seems unlikely. Or, If each of the galaxies are their own universe for a time, it seems unlikely they all would have the same unique constants as our galaxy.

Dear Emmanouil,

just another follow-up question for the purpose of clarification: If I understand correctly, you are proposing that a preexisting vacuum space gave rise to a multiplicity of simultaneous (?) singularities - to use your analogue: as in a "phase transition", as it were. Two short follow-ups to this:

a) Did quantum fluctuations cause these singularities? --> Was this simultaneous creation of singularities a "one-off event" or can this be expected to occur repeatedly? Perhaps even as part of a recurring cyclic pattern?

b) The multiple singularities that you describe are not identical to the genesis of different (separate) universes as, e.g., some varieties of multiverse theory hold, are they?

Many thanks again,

Julius

Emmanouil Markoulakis,

an altarnative to your story you can find in my books ("Born:A universe" in my profile). It starts from a bang which creates the elementary particles. That process leads to the creation of the super massive objects (SMH:s) in the center of the galaxies from where the galaxies are formed by accreting particles.

Look at book IV which explains the complete process up till he formation of the CMB. Book V is a short version devoted to confronting my findings with recent observations (including JWST). The agreement is quite nice.

Julius Riese

"b) The multiple singularities that you describe are not identical to the genesis of different (separate) universes as, e.g., some varieties of multiverse theory hold, are they?"

IMO no. Free space is uniform so it generates all over the same physical laws. No multiverse only universe. However, since there are three substances consisting the universe, sub-luminous energy (matter), luminous energy (light) and superluminous energy (vacuum) and boundary condition c, that separates there in two different spacetime verses. Luminous and sub-luminous energy are described by the Einsteinian spacetime and superluminous energy thus free space vacuum by the superluminous spacetime.

"a) Did quantum fluctuations cause these singularities? --> Was this simultaneous creation of singularities a "one-off event" or can this be expected to occur repeatedly? Perhaps even as part of a recurring cyclic pattern?"

No. It is was (is) a phase transition of vacuum. Since the ZPE (the vacuum energy we can measure) increases as measured (universe expands without reducing the ZPE density) meaning energy is not conserved in our observable universe therefore I'm not sure if this phase transition is not still going on thus new stable matter is created over the years.

Notice by "phase transition of vacuum" I mean not a total phase transition only localized at these multiple inflating singularities inside the vacuum. Most of the vacuum volume remains at its superluminous energy state thus giving the illusion to us as being "Nothing".

Vacuum space appearing to us in general as "nothing" is the biggest proof of nature that it is actually unknown superluminous (v>c) vibrational energy and the proof was all this time right in front of our face.

Only something superluminal could not be detected by LHC. That is the reason why there are no more new particles to be detected. Dark matter is not due to a new particle but side effects of hidden vacuum energy thus dark energy. We must turn our focus and take seriously superluminal research for the next breakthrough in physics to happen.

There is no other way, after high energy physics next is superluminal energy physics. I don't think a bigger LHC will discover anything revolutionary, since it will still be bound at c. Superluminal particles cannot be directly observed with our luminous apparatus however they can be deduced by experiments (g-2 muon experiment). Theoretically we already have by the concept of virtual particles although we believe they are not real but this could not be further from the truth.

My paper is now in production by the Journal and will be published in a couple of days.

Emmanouil

Emmanouil Markoulakis,

do you like Tachyons, superluminal objects?

Dark matter can be explained by neutrinos which I found to constitute up to 90% of the mass of the universe.

Dark energy does not exist which I conjectured in my third book.

Thank you, Emmanouil! Please let us know once your paper is published. Best, Julius.

The only way to progress science is to overcome the existing and old theories' limitations.

https://www.space.com/james-webb-space-telescope-giant-distant-galaxies-surprise?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_content=space.com&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

New Publication "The superluminous vacuum" why the vacuum appears as nothing.

Article The superluminous vacuum

Two very interesting proposals.

However, proposal 1 seems to me at the present time as very early to doubt the constancy of the speed of light.

Proposal 2 is more interesting. It can be spoken also before the big bang of a "potential space" in the absolute nothing. The inflating cosmos simply takes the necessary space for its expansion.

In the case of vacuum space, several singularities or quantum fluctuations may well occur. But why should these states react/expand simultaneously? Or in other words, at t=0 a singularity/quantum fluctuation expands and thus time begins to exist. The other following effects expand into the already taking place inflation phase and mix to the inflation phase.

Helmuth Grötzebauch

Yes this also plausible but I' m generally more intrigued by the idea that it was a sudden phase transition that happened everywhere more or less all at once. Similar to cube of water turning into ice cube in the fridge.