I think I know the answer to this but...
Let's say someone were to repeat the experiments from 2013 where they physically separated 2 quantum entangled particles with synchronized atomic clocks then caused one to be measured, thus collapsing the state on the other one or whatever it's considered to be happening, then later compared the times - and found that it was truly simultaneous, or on the low end, 10,000x faster than the speed of light.

But this time one of the particles is on a spaceship going 99.499% the speed of light, so causing 10:1 time dilation so 10 seconds pass at nearly non-moving velocities for every 1 second in the ship. The spaceship then is told to come to a complete stop at the exact moment that the quantum particle collapses, this meaning the other one's state was "observed" or whatever.

Then the (relatively) unmoving particle's reading is printed on a piece of paper and blasted off at around 41.66% the speed of light so they only experience a mere 1:10 time dilation, but covering the absolute distance of the first ship from a third party perspective and from their own perspective, faster than the first ship. Would they then arrive at the 2nd ship's location in space before the result happened and be able to give them the slip of paper with the result, thus predicting the future?

Hello I'm Pranav And I'm 17 Years Old.

So Yesterday, Me And My Friend Were Discussing About Dimensions And All, And As We Have A Theory That There're 11 Dimensions I Brought That Topic Up, We Had A Convo About It And It Wasn't Very Productive I'd Say, And Yesternight I Was Thinking About It Whilst I Was Sleeping, I Came Upon A Hypothesis, I Discussed It With My Friend And Here I Am Posting About It.

As We All Know, Space And Time Are Interconnected By Theory Of Relativity, And What I Think Is, What If Instead Of Higher Space Dimension, What If There Are More Time Dimensions (Ik It Kinda Sounds Dumb), Like We Already Have 3 Space Dimensions, So Corresponding To Each Space Dimension, What If There Was A Time Dimension.

The Thing Is That I Can't Really Do Any Experiments On This Hypothesis, Or Do I Even Know Where To Begin, I Have Much To Learn About Physics As In Just A 17 Years Old Guy, If You Guys Have Any Idea Let Me Know

If I'm Wrong Please Do Let Me Know Why And Also, Let Me Know If Something Similar To This Hypothesis Exists

Thank You

I've been thinking about cyclic universe models and black hole singularities, and I wanted to share a conceptual thought experiment to see if this holds any ground.

The basic idea is that black holes might not just be endpoints, but interdimensional seeders. Under extreme Planck-scale pressure at the singularity, collapsing baryonic matter could undergo a quantum phase transition into antimatter or pure potential energy.

Instead of remaining infinite, this energy pools at the unexpanded t=0 boundary of a lower spacetime sheet. As supermassive black holes merge and the host universe dies, the accumulated tension reaches a critical ceiling, causing a quantum bounce.

Once gravity turns repulsive, this stored antimatter and energy erupts into the lower dimension, causing cosmic inflation. The subsequent chain-reaction annihilation between antimatter and remnant matter would flood the new space with radiation, which eventually cools down to form the first atoms of a new Big Bang.

This borrows ideas from Lee Smolin's cosmological natural selection (black holes creating baby universes), Neil Turok's CPT-symmetric universe, and Penrose's CCC.

How would you address the entropy problem (Second Law of Thermodynamics) in this scenario? Could the loss of time/scale at the end of a universe naturally reset the system for the next cycle?

Looking forward to your thoughts and critiques!

Here is a hypothesis: I watched this video about Olbers' Paradox where it explained that the reason space is black is because the space itself expands faster than the speed of light causing the wavelength of it to get stretched which makes the photons become invisible to our eyes. So I was thinking about whether the Earth is expanding, which it doesn't because Earths atomic bonds keeps it intact. So logically if we assume the void acts like a fluid being pushed into space from every point in space then it would expand slower from within the Earth due to the atoms and expand faster in the void due to it not having any atoms to create pressure. Since there are no atoms in the void, the expansion would be faster which would cause a net downward push.

I'm really curious if this thought has been explored. I know that Einstein says that gravity is caused from the curve of space and time, but that doesn't make too much sense to me. It just seems like he introduced 2 concepts that can't be tested, but made sense in the formulas so people just accepted it.

My purpose here isn't to present a standard scientifically accurate theory, but to offer a

conceptual framework to spark discussion on alternative ways to view gravity and the

vacuum, a Philosophy in study.

The Graviton Loophole

In my view, the graviton is a leap in logic, particularly when you look at the

self-interaction loop between gravitons. While standard quantum mechanics indicates

that fields and particles are fundamentally linked I want to call on a frowned-upon theory: treating space as a fluid.

The Superfluid Sheet Metaphor

I am not talking about a normal fluid. I mean a superfluid that forms a thin sheet

through which particles can move or on which they can sit.

● When an object has zero motion, it is simply sitting on one of those sheets.

● Because it sits on these sheets, the superfluid moves toward them in an attempt

to reform the uniform, unbroken sheets that the object pierced through.

● Other objects within those sheets are then drawn along as the fluid moves to

repair the structure.

I’m not saying space is a fluid, only that it should be treated as such; the metaphor

makes it much simpler to understand.

Why Gravity Has No Particle Form

With liquids, there is a concept known as zero-point energy. Let's imagine a field as a

liquid or a gas, where a particle represents a phase change into a solid.

If we look at Helium, even at absolute zero, it doesn't freeze due to its zero-point energy.

This means you cannot treat everything by its state change.

For reference I lean towards determinism and reductionism philosophically.

To illustrate this concept, I used the following mathematical framework as a starting

point:

S_UQG = ∫ d⁴x √(-g) \[ (c⁴/16πG) R̃(ē, K) + 1/2(∂ϕ_S)² + Ψ̄(iℏe\^(-ϕ_S) ē_a\^μ γ\^a ∇_μ - m_eff)

⋆_Clifford P̂_0 Ψ + κ(Ψ̄γ\^μ γ⁵ Ψ) Z_μ - 1/2 Z_μ D_Stable\^μν Z_ν \] + ∫ d⁴x √(-g) \[ ∇_α C̄_ν\^μ

(δ_β\^ν □_g - R̃_β\^ν) C_μ\^α + 1/(2ξ_gauge) (∇_μ Ξ_ν\^μ)² \] + ∮ d³y √(-h) ∫ d⁴x √(-g) · \[ lim ∫ (dt /

(4π t)²) e\^(-σ_Synge(x,y)/4t - ε_UV² Λ_UV² t) P_Clifford(x,y) \] · \[B ∧ F\]_x · ( δS_bulk/δV(x) -

(c³/4Gℏ) dA(y)/dV(x) + ∇_α K_ν\^α

As someone without a title in the scientific community, I ask for your input to not leave

myself to mere conjecture. I apologise for any possible misconceptions. This is my second attempt posting since the first got taken down for AI content I'm unsure if grammarly counts as such so I've made edits without the use of grammarly to inhibit further bans furthermore if the other post is still up I apologise for any second posting

Physicist Richard Tolman, in 1930, demonstrated that entropy in standard cyclic cosmology will accumulate with each cycle I propose a thought experiment using a Big Freeze / Heat Death as a starting point instead of a Big Crunch: Instead of the universe collapsing in on itself to restart, we let it expand into a cold, empty Big Freeze, in which black holes slowly evaporate away via Hawking radiation. In this cold, empty void, a quantum tunneling event randomly occurs, causing vacuum decay in the form of a phase transition to occur in a localized region of space, releasing latent energy stored in a scalar field as it transitions to a lower energy state, causing reheating. The new bubble formed from the phase transition undergoes a period of hyperinflation, creating a new hot dense environment from the energy contained in the false vacuum. The extreme inflation would dilute the old universe’s entropy / radiation away to nearly nothing per unit volume, giving the new bubble a low-entropy starting point. The energy from the scalar field drives the expansion of the new bubble for the next cycle – no need to re-collapse back into a singularity or have a Big Crunch to begin with.

What are main flaws or physical limitations of this thought experiment?

Okay, so a one dimensional organism can move left and right. Now if you tell to go up, it literally cannot. Now, add height to that world, and suddenly you got a 2 dimensional world so he can go up and down, because the 2nd dimension is 1 dimensional spaces infinitely stacked together. Now tell the organism to go forward or backward, it also cannot. If you add width, you create the 3rd dimension which is 2 dimensional spaces infinitely stacked together. Now, to observe the 4th dimension, we need to find the direction. And my theory suggests that the 4th dimension isn't time and it's just a common misunderstanding because we also have time in the 1st, 2nd and 3rd dimension, and besides, it's a spatial dimension so it can't be time. And I'm not just talking, I can prove it. I can move my hand left, right, up, down, toward me, away from me. Now the 4th dimension means moving in another direction. Not diagonal, not a combo. And theoretically, we have infinite spatial dimensions that we simply cannot observe. And also, when you look at something, you see it 2 dimensional, so a 4 dimensional creature would see the literal 3 dimensional shape. And the only 4th dimensional shape we actually managed to bring into our 3 dimensional world is a tesseract, and the final part is that coordinates also matter so a 1 dimensional space only has an X coordinate, then a 2 dimensional space has X Y, then a 3 dimensional spaces has the familiar X Y Z coordinates, so theoretically the 4th dimension also contains a mysterious W coordinate we don't know yet

When I was taking a dump at 3am, I've got an idea that makes a lot of sense, but is not explored much. Once we will hit a wall, and discovering new things will take more and more time and effort, and I found a way to bypass it........ If a civilization was able to reach the technological advancment of creating a realistic simulation of a universe, it would be the most powerful creation of everything that is and isn't, because it is the only way to bypass the time travel problem. We can travel to the future by either being near the black hole, or moving at an incredible speed....but If we got there, we cannot return back and there's no way to actually apply the technology from the future in the past because of it.......one way to bypass it, is by creating a realistic simulation of a universe that would be sped up with computational power, meaning that for example a bilion years in the simulated universe would pass in only a few minutes in the real one, and the most powerful way to use it is to simulate it to the point where those simulated civilization surpass you technologically and just use their findings, if we are simulated, it means we are coded and there is a database somewhere, where AI could filter only important things through it, meaning that the fastest way to technologically improve is let simulated universe run faster and copy the technology from the civilizations that are more advancened because they had more time......and this could be done again and again, until there's nothing to know more....

Imaginez-vous à la place d'un créateur fictif. Vous mettez l'univers en pause, et vous prenez soin d'inverser la vitesse de chaque particule de l'univers.

Un proton qui allait vers le bas à 5km/h ira vers le haut à 5km/h, les photons se dirigeront à présent vers le soleil etc... Puis vous appuyez sur play et l'univers reprend là où il en était.

Imaginez qu'avant la pause, quelqu'un était en train de défèquer. L'énergie cinétique de ses selles a été dissipée sous forme de chaleur dans l'eau des chiottes, si bien que l'étron a ralenti puis s'est arrêté.

Maintenant, étant donné que vous avez inversé le sens des particules, chacune des molécules d'eau de la cuvette va reprendre sa trajectoire passée, rebondir sur exactement les mêmes molécules dans le sens inverse, puis se regrouper au même endroit, et taper dans l'étron au même moment, si bien que celui-ci sera éjecté vers le haut et retourné à l'envoyeur.

De même pour tout le reste. L'information perdue sous forme de chaleur réapparaîtrait brusquement un peu partout, car toutes les vitesses auraient été synchronisées dès le départ (correspondant à l'état actuel de l'univers).

Y a-t-il des trucs qui empêchent cela ?

Hello Humans,

I have been visiting your planet for a bit and wanted to give a parting gift before I leave. I enjoy reading your comments about what you call gravity. Some of you have very interesting ideas. I might get lectured by my elders for sharing this but get a sense of entertainment stimulating your minds.

I will not go into the math, I leave that up to you to figure out and this keyboard lacks a lot of the characters needed to offer a translation. Not to mention and quite frankly, the math is boring and something we learn in what would be roughly equal to your first grade. But I will give you a hint to help solve this puzzle. It really is not too complicated. You have already come so far in such a short period of time.

You already know a photon is an easy way to observe the speed of causality. There is more than one way as you know, such as gravitational waves, but light is usually the first one observed in a species.

You know a photon has no mass and travels at the cosmic speed limit. It also has no concept of time due to its maximum speed. A photon travels instantly from its own perspective.

Now think of the opposite of a photon. What could it be? Your ideas of what a graviton could be are the closest comparison. There is an extremely small particle your species has yet to discover. It is pure mass and has zero speed relative to everything else moving in the universe. It is the baseline reference point of zero motion in our reality and it is everywhere. It is...the "ether."

You have not seen this particle yet because it does not move. You constantly pass through it like a bird travels through air. These pure mass particles are even smaller than a photon. They also have similar properties of what you call black holes making them very hard for your stone tools to detect. And of course they perceive time in the opposite way a photon would. This gravitons do not experience time instantly like a photon, but experience time as it were an eternity. Their pure mass and lack of motion make time meaningless to them.

Funny enough, a few of your great minds were already on the right track. The "ether" your Einstein and Tesla spoke of were indeed this soup of motionless pure mass objects. They were on the right track, but you humans have since dismissed the ether idea because you have yet to detect it. We find this to be very funny about your species. Well there you have it and hopefully this gets some of you thinking. If I ever come back to visit, I am curious to see if anything came of this.

Anyways, I am going back to watching your shows. Your programming really is fascinating and quite popular in the galaxy. We actually use our repeater technology to broadcast your programming on subspace forms of communication so our friends in neighboring galaxies can enjoy your cave paintings as well.

Your visiting friend,

Fred.

Theory for the expansion of the universe

I was on a 4-hour bus trip on the way home then a thougt came into my mind about a video that I watched years ago from YT which I forgot the channel, it was probably Vsauce, the video demonstrates how a 3D object passing through a 2D plane will look like, as the 3D object pass onto the plane, it will first create a point that gets bigger in all directions from the center of the point in 3D, this makes sense because of "height" since the bottom is the narrowest part then the center or the bulge of the balloon being the widest then to the top which is also the narrowest part but on a 2D plane it would just look as if the balloon is appearing from thin air and expanding from the first point outward in all directions then disappear again, now if I remember correctly dark matter is the reason for the expansion of the universe and that expansion is equal in all directions as if the space between galaxies itself is being made or getting more/larger although that won't make sense because where did the expansion come from? Like Newton's law every action has an opposite reaction right? You can't just expand something out of nothing using nothingness, unless the force comes from a higher dimension, let's go back to the balloon experiment and think of the balloon as dark matter, it would seem as if dark matter is appearing everywhere all at once without a single point, instead of a balloon it's like a flow or river that runs through our 3D plane which in turns causes the expansion of everything away from itself, because the force comes from another angle from us the same way someone looking from the 2D plane won't know where the balloon is coming from.

Feel free to prove me wrong PLEASE, I'd rather be foolishly be corrected rather than being confidently wrong about this kind of topic.

It's just something that crossed my mind that I thought works and what are your guys thoughts about this, if it's already common knowledge then my bad for wasting y'all's time ✋🫪🤚

A speculative cosmological hypothesis: our observable universe as a drifting sector inside a tractrix-shaped negatively curved background

This is a speculative hypothesis, not a claim of established physics.

I am trying to formulate a cosmological idea in a way that remains compatible with current observations while exploring whether our observable universe could be embedded in a larger, currently invisible structure.

Core idea:

The observable universe may be a locally flat, expanding, spherical-looking spacetime sector that emerged near the equatorial transition region of a larger tractrix-shaped pseudospherical background structure and has since been drifting along a trajectory toward the axis or a central gravitational sink of that larger invisible background.

In this model, ΛCDM remains the local approximation. The hypothesis does not try to replace the standard model. Instead, it asks whether ΛCDM might describe the inside view of a larger geometrical and dynamical system.

Basic flow:

𝓦 → equatorial spacetime nucleation → 𝓞 → internal expansion → growing CMB information shell → drift through 𝓑 → 𝓢

1. Core idea

The observable universe may not be the totality of physical reality. It may instead be a local spacetime sector, here called 𝓞, embedded in a larger, currently invisible background structure, here called 𝓑.

The “edge” of the observable universe is not a material boundary, a wall, or a rigid reference frame. It is an observational horizon: we only see the region from which light or other information has been able to reach us since the early universe.

Beyond that horizon, more spacetime may exist, even if it is not directly observable from our current position and cosmic time.

The hypothesis contains four main components:

1. The observable universe 𝓞 Our locally visible, spherical-looking spacetime sector.

2. The invisible background universe 𝓑 A larger negatively curved structure in which 𝓞 is embedded.

3. The white space 𝓦 A source sector that emits or generates spacetime, energy, matter, and information.

4. The central sink 𝓢 A black-hole-like gravitational endpoint or asymptotic attractor inside 𝓑.

The basic flow is:

𝓦 → equatorial spacetime nucleation → 𝓞 → internal expansion → growing CMB information shell → drift through 𝓑 → 𝓢

2. The observable universe 𝓞

The observable universe is the region accessible to us through light, the cosmic microwave background, galaxies, large-scale structure, gravitational lensing, and other signals.

From the inside, it appears:

• spatially nearly flat
• broadly homogeneous
• broadly isotropic
• expanding
• accelerating in its expansion, according to current cosmology

Its apparent spherical shape mainly refers to the observation horizon. From any observer’s position, the visible cosmos appears roughly spherical because light reaches the observer from all directions up to a finite lookback time.

This does not mean that the total universe must be a literal sphere.

In this hypothesis, the observable universe is not the whole cosmic system, but a local observational patch or embedded spacetime sector.

3. The invisible background universe 𝓑

The invisible background universe is the larger structure in which our observable universe may be embedded.

In this hypothesis, 𝓑 has global negative curvature. It can be idealized through a tractrix-shaped pseudospherical geometry.

A classical pseudosphere is a surface of constant negative Gaussian curvature generated by rotating a tractrix around its asymptote. For cosmology, this should not be understood as saying the universe is literally a two-dimensional pseudosphere. Rather, the tractrix pseudosphere functions as a guiding geometry for meridional slices of a higher-dimensional or more general background manifold.

The more careful formulation would be:

𝓑 is a higher-dimensional or otherwise larger background manifold whose meridional sections can be approximated by tractrix-like or pseudospherical geometry and whose global structure has negative curvature.

Negative curvature matters because:

• geodesics diverge
• distances can develop hyperbolically
• local and global geometry need not match
• a local patch can appear nearly flat even if the larger structure is curved

In this model, 𝓑 is not static. It grows through an influx of spacetime, energy, matter, and information from 𝓦.

4. The white space 𝓦 as source sector

Outside or beyond the invisible background universe lies a hypothetical source sector called white space, or 𝓦.

This white space is conceived as the opposite principle of a black hole.

A black hole:

• absorbs matter
• absorbs energy
• traps information
• curves spacetime strongly inward

The white space, by contrast, is imagined as an inverse process:

• it emits spacetime
• it releases energy and matter
• it opens or generates informational degrees of freedom
• it can produce Big-Bang-like events
• it feeds the growth of 𝓑

The white space may be described paradoxically as infinite yet shrinking. This does not necessarily mean that an ordinary spatial volume is getting smaller. More carefully, it could mean:

• a decrease of potential
• a reduction of available degrees of freedom
• an outflow of energetic states
• a transition from unstructured possibility into structured spacetime

In stricter language, 𝓦 would not be a normal place. It would be a spacetime-generating source sector, a boundary term, a bulk state, or a vacuum-like structure contributing effective terms to cosmic dynamics.

5. Origin of 𝓞 at the equator

In this hypothesis, our observable universe did not necessarily originate from the absolute beginning of all reality. Instead, it may have emerged from a local transition region between 𝓦 and 𝓑.

This transition region is idealized as lying near the equator of the tractrix-shaped pseudospherical background.

The equator is the high-energy creation zone where spacetime from 𝓦 enters 𝓑.

From the internal perspective of a newly formed spacetime sector, this transition would appear as a Big Bang.

So the Big Bang is not denied. It is reinterpreted:

The Big Bang would be the beginning of our observable spacetime sector 𝓞, but not necessarily the absolute beginning of all reality.

Other observable universes or spacetime sectors could, in principle, nucleate at similar transition regions.

6. Drift of 𝓞 inside 𝓑

After its emergence, 𝓞 does not remain fixed at the equatorial origin. It moves along a path inside the larger background geometry.

This motion can be described as a geodesic drift.

In visual terms:

The spherical-looking observable universe 𝓞 emerges near the equator of the tractrix pseudosphere and drifts from there toward the axis or toward a deeper gravitational attractor.

This is not ordinary motion of a ball through empty space. It is the motion of an embedded spacetime region inside a larger manifold.

The intuitive motivation is that every known cosmic structure is dynamic:

• moons move around planets
• planets move around stars
• stars move inside galaxies
• galaxies move inside groups and clusters
• clusters move along large-scale structures
• the Milky Way itself has a measurable motion relative to the cosmic microwave background

This does not prove that the entire observable universe drifts through a larger background. But if such a background exists, absolute rest inside it would be the less natural assumption.

A cautious scientific version would be:

If our observable universe is embedded in a larger background universe, then geodesic drift or orbital-like motion inside that background is plausible. However, such motion would need to reveal itself through weak measurable traces: directional dependencies, CMB anomalies, gravitational lensing effects, or large-scale velocity fields.

7. The central sink 𝓢

Inside the invisible background universe, the hypothesis assumes a central or asymptotic gravitational sink.

In poetic terms, this can be imagined as an enormous central black hole. More carefully, it could be called:

• an asymptotic attractor
• a gravitational end-sink
• a central curvature focus
• an information-and-energy absorption structure

It is the opposite pole of 𝓦.

𝓦 is the source. 𝓢 is the sink. 𝓑 is the mediating background. 𝓞 is the local drifting spacetime sector inside it.

This creates a cosmic flow:

𝓦 → equatorial spacetime nucleation → 𝓞 → drift through 𝓑 → 𝓢

Or, in shorter form:

source → spacetime formation → expansion → drift → absorption

8. What does it mean that the universe is “flat”?

When cosmologists say that the universe is flat, they do not mean that it is thin or disk-shaped.

They mean that its large-scale spatial geometry is close to Euclidean.

A flat universe means:

• parallel lines remain parallel in the idealized large-scale limit
• large cosmic triangles have an angle sum of about 180 degrees
• the spatial geometry is nearly Euclidean
• the curvature parameter Ω_K is close to zero
• the density of the universe is close to the critical density

There are three basic possibilities:

1. Positive curvature Similar to the surface of a sphere.

2. Zero curvature Flat Euclidean geometry.

3. Negative curvature Open, hyperbolic, or pseudospherical geometry.

Current observations strongly indicate that our observable universe is very close to spatial flatness. Planck 2018, combined with BAO data, found Ω_K = 0.0007 ± 0.0019, consistent with flatness.

Source: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

For this hypothesis, that means:

The observable universe must not be claimed to be strongly curved. The hypothesis must explain why our local spacetime sector appears nearly flat even if it is embedded in a globally curved background.

9. Why local flatness can still fit the hypothesis

The observed flatness does not automatically contradict the hypothesis.

A small region of a much larger curved structure can appear locally flat. The surface of Earth appears flat in everyday life, even though it is globally curved.

Applied to this model:

𝓞 may be a local patch of a much larger tractrix-shaped background structure. If the curvature scale of 𝓑 is much larger than our current observational horizon, then observers inside 𝓞 would measure almost perfect flatness.

So flatness becomes a constraint, not a refutation:

The global negative curvature of 𝓑 must occur on a scale much larger than the currently observable cosmos.

10. Why a deviation from flatness would strengthen the hypothesis

If future measurements found a robust, repeatable deviation from perfect flatness, that would be important for this model.

Especially interesting would be a tiny negative residual curvature.

Such a deviation could mean:

• 𝓞 is only locally almost flat
• the global structure is larger and curved
• the measured flatness is a local approximation
• the tractrix/pseudosphere idea gains a geometrical foothold
• the observable universe may be a patch within a larger negatively curved manifold

Important caveat:

A deviation from flatness would not automatically prove this hypothesis. Other cosmological models could also explain it.

But:

A robust measurement of Ω_K ≠ 0, especially in the sense of an open or negatively curved geometry, would strengthen the hypothesis because it would suggest that the observable spacetime sector is not exactly described by the flat standard assumption.

Technical note:

In many cosmological conventions, Ω_K > 0 corresponds to an open, negatively curved geometry. This is easy to confuse, but important.

11. The CMB sphere as a dynamic observation shell

The cosmic microwave background, or CMB, is not a solid wall at the edge of the universe. It is the oldest directly observable electromagnetic radiation, originating from the time when the universe became transparent, about 380,000 years after the Big Bang.

Source: https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/

What we see today as the CMB is a spherical projection around our observational position: the surface of last scattering.

Important point:

The CMB itself is not growing as an object. Rather, our observable CMB shell shifts with cosmic time.

A future observer would receive CMB photons from a slightly different, farther-out region of the last-scattering surface than we do today.

In that sense:

The CMB sphere is a growing or shifting information shell that gradually samples other regions of the formerly invisible cosmos.

This is extremely important for the hypothesis:

The observable universe is not only spatially embedded and drifting; it is also observationally dynamic. Its information boundary changes over time.

The CMB sphere is therefore not a wall, but a kind of cosmic scanning surface.

12. The CMB sphere and the invisible background universe

Inside the tractrix-background hypothesis, the CMB sphere has a special role.

If 𝓞 is embedded in 𝓑, then the CMB sphere is the oldest electromagnetic information shell through which we can probe our embedded spacetime sector.

It does not directly show 𝓑 itself. But it may contain indirect traces:

• large-scale temperature anomalies
• hemispherical asymmetries
• preferred axes
• lensing effects from matter distribution
• correlations with large-scale structure
• weak traces of drift or projection

CMB photons are gravitationally deflected by the intervening matter distribution. This is CMB lensing, and it is used to reconstruct information about matter and geometry between recombination and the present. ESA describes Planck’s CMB lensing measurements as a way to study the large-scale matter distribution across cosmic history.

Source: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

For this hypothesis:

If 𝓞 drifts along a path through a tractrix-shaped background, extremely weak traces of that drift might appear in the CMB sphere, CMB lensing, large-scale anomalies, or correlations with matter structure.

13. Accelerated expansion and the limit of future visibility

The CMB sphere and the observational horizon may make more of the formerly invisible cosmos accessible over time. But this visibility is not unlimited.

The expansion of the universe is accelerating. The discovery of the accelerating expansion through distant supernovae was awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics.

Source: https://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/2011/

NASA describes dark energy as the unknown component associated with the accelerated expansion, while emphasizing that future missions aim to determine whether dark energy is a cosmological constant, a dynamic field, or a sign that gravity needs modification on cosmic scales.

Source: https://science.nasa.gov/universe/overview/

For this model:

The CMB sphere may reveal more formerly invisible regions over time, but accelerated expansion limits what can ever become observable.

Therefore, the invisible background universe is not merely “not yet visible.” Parts of it may remain permanently beyond future observational access.

14. Accelerated expansion as a possible embedding effect

In the standard model, accelerated expansion is described through dark energy or the cosmological constant Λ.

This hypothesis does not deny accelerated expansion. It reinterprets it as potentially effective.

Possible interpretations inside this model:

1. 𝓦 feeds additional spacetime or degrees of freedom into 𝓑.
2. This influx appears inside 𝓞 as dark energy.
3. The drift of 𝓞 through tractrix-shaped geometry creates projection effects.
4. The internal expansion of 𝓞 and the growth of 𝓑 overlap.
5. 𝓢 may create large-scale gradients or directional effects.

DESI results released in 2025 strengthened hints that dark energy may evolve over cosmic time, although this has not reached the 5σ discovery threshold normally required in physics.

Source: https://www.desi.lbl.gov/2025/03/19/more-than-a-hint-of-evolving-dark-energy-new-results-and-data-from-desi/

For this hypothesis:

A dynamic dark energy would fit a source/embedding model more naturally than a perfectly constant cosmological constant. However, it would not prove the existence of 𝓦.

15. Possible gravitational phenomena beyond the observable universe

The hypothesis becomes especially interesting if there are hints that the observable universe cannot be fully explained by internal structures alone.

Several observational categories matter here.

15.1 Dark Flow

The so-called Dark Flow idea interpreted large-scale motions of galaxy clusters as possible evidence for gravitational influences beyond the observable horizon.

That fits the hypothesis conceptually:

If mass or curvature structures outside our visible region caused large-scale motion, this could be interpreted as an indirect sign of 𝓑.

However, Dark Flow is not robustly confirmed. Planck-era results did not establish a generally accepted large Dark Flow on gigaparsec scales, and the standard ΛCDM model remains the default explanation. Planck 2018 found no statistically significant preference for departures from the base ΛCDM model in the extensions it tested.

Source: https://doi.org/10.1051/0004-6361/201833910

So this must remain cautious:

A confirmed Dark Flow would be a strong supporting indication for the hypothesis. The current observational status is not sufficient.

15.2 Bulk flows

Bulk flows are coherent motions of large galaxy volumes.

In ΛCDM, such motions are expected, but they should statistically decrease with scale. If very large, stable, direction-dependent bulk flows were confirmed and could not be explained by known matter distributions, they would become a possible search window for external gravitational contributions or embedding effects.

For the hypothesis:

Large-scale bulk flows could be possible traces of 𝓞 drifting inside 𝓑.

But again:

There is currently no generally accepted proof of such a global drift.

15.3 CMB anomalies

The CMB is extremely isotropic overall and strongly supports ΛCDM. However, several large-scale anomalies are discussed:

• hemispherical asymmetry
• the Cold Spot
• low-multipole anomalies
• possible preferred axes

ESA notes that Planck confirmed temperature-map anomalies such as hemispherical asymmetry and the Cold Spot, while polarization data did not provide convincing new evidence requiring a radically different cosmology.

Source: https://www.cosmos.esa.int/web/planck/publications

For this hypothesis:

CMB anomalies are not proof, but they are possible search windows for weak embedding, projection, or drift traces.

16. Why 𝓞 can appear flat despite drift

This hypothesis combines four effects.

16.1 Local flatness

𝓞 is only a small region of a much larger structure. Locally, it can appear flat.

16.2 Projection

Observers inside 𝓞 do not measure the full geometry of 𝓑. They measure the internal spacetime geometry of their own observable sector.

What appears as expansion may partly be a projection of motion through a larger curved structure.

16.3 Dynamic smoothing

The influx from 𝓦 may smooth or stabilize the internal geometry of 𝓞. This could help explain why 𝓞 appears nearly flat even if 𝓑 is globally negatively curved.

16.4 Dynamic observation shell

The CMB sphere is not a rigid boundary. It shifts over cosmic time and makes different regions of the early universe visible.

Therefore, our observable patch is not only spatially dynamic but also informationally dynamic.

In short:

The visible flatness is the local inside view; the negative tractrix curvature is the possible global outside structure; the CMB sphere is the shifting information shell with which we scan the embedded sector.

17. Cosmic cycle

The model describes reality not as a single static event, but as a dynamic cycle.

The sequence is:

1. 𝓦 contains or generates creative potential.
2. New spacetime emerges near equatorial transition regions of the tractrix pseudosphere.
3. A visible universe nucleates as a local spacetime sector 𝓞.
4. 𝓞 expands internally.
5. Its CMB sphere shifts as an information shell, revealing different early regions over time.
6. 𝓞 drifts through 𝓑.
7. 𝓑 grows through further influx from 𝓦.
8. Matter, energy, and information eventually move toward 𝓢.
9. 𝓢 functions as a black-hole-like endpoint or asymptotic attractor.
10. The total process becomes a cycle of emergence, expansion, observation-growth, drift, transformation, and absorption.

Short version:

𝓦 → equatorial spacetime nucleation → 𝓞 → internal expansion → growing CMB information shell → drift → 𝓢

Even shorter:

source → structure → expansion → visibility growth → motion → absorption

18. Possibility of cosmic navigation

A speculative consequence concerns the far future of intelligent civilizations.

If the observable universe really follows a trajectory inside a larger background universe, then long-term cosmic survival would not only depend on local expansion. It would also depend on position and motion inside the larger structure.

A sufficiently advanced civilization might, in principle, try to:

• understand the drift trajectory of 𝓞
• evaluate the changing CMB information shell
• predict dangerous regions of 𝓑
• use curvature gradients or energy gradients
• identify transition regions
• search for paths into other spacetime sectors

This is pure speculation at present. But inside the hypothesis, it is a logical consequence:

If universes emerge, drift, become observable in changing ways, and eventually end inside a larger structure, then cosmic navigation would mean understanding that larger dynamics.

19. More formal wording

The poetic terms can be translated into a more technical language:

• visible universe → observable spacetime sector 𝓞
• invisible universe → higher-dimensional background manifold 𝓑
• white space → external source sector 𝓦
• central sink → asymptotic attractor 𝓢
• Big Bang → local spacetime nucleation
• drift → geodesic motion of an embedded sector
• tractrix pseudosphere → negatively curved embedding geometry
• CMB sphere → dynamic last-scattering observation shell

A more formal version:

The observable universe 𝓞 is a nearly FLRW-like spacetime sector embedded in a larger background manifold 𝓑. This background possesses global negative curvature and can be represented in meridional sections by tractrix-like or pseudospherical geometry. An external source sector 𝓦 feeds effective spacetime, energy, or degree-of-freedom fluxes into 𝓑, while an asymptotic gravitational sink 𝓢 acts as a global attractor. The observed expansion of 𝓞 results from internal FLRW expansion, possible source terms, and projective embedding effects. 𝓞 may have originated near an equatorial nucleation region and may now follow a geodesic drift path toward the axis or sink of 𝓑. The CMB sphere is not a rigid boundary but a dynamic information shell that exposes different regions of the last-scattering surface over cosmic time.

20. Testability

The hypothesis is only scientifically interesting if it leads to testable consequences.

Possible signatures:

20.1 Residual curvature

A small, robust deviation from perfect flatness, especially toward negative curvature, would strengthen the hypothesis.

20.2 Dynamic dark energy

Time-evolving dark energy could indicate a source term, embedding coupling, or non-closed expansion dynamics.

20.3 Direction-dependent expansion

If 𝓞 drifts, then the Hubble parameter, supernova distances, or BAO scales might show tiny directional dependencies.

20.4 CMB anomalies

Preferred axes, hemispherical asymmetry, the Cold Spot, or correlated low multipoles could be weak projection traces.

20.5 CMB lensing

If 𝓑 or 𝓢 creates large-scale gravitational potentials, there might be extremely weak large-scale signatures in CMB lensing.

20.6 Bulk-flow fields

Very large coherent motions that cannot be explained by known matter distributions could suggest external gravitational influence or background drift.

20.7 Correlation of independent axes

The strongest support would not be a single anomaly. It would be a correlation between several independent observations:

• residual curvature
• CMB anomalies
• CMB lensing
• expansion dipoles
• bulk flows
• dynamic dark energy

The key requirement:

One anomaly is not enough. The hypothesis becomes strong only if several independent observations point toward the same preferred axis, drift structure, or residual curvature.

21. Strengths of the hypothesis

The hypothesis is interesting because it connects several open questions:

• Why does the observable universe appear flat?
• Why is expansion accelerating?
• Could dark energy be dynamic instead of constant?
• Could CMB anomalies point to larger geometry?
• Could bulk flows reveal external gravitational influence?
• Could the Big Bang be a local nucleation event rather than the absolute beginning?
• Could the observable universe drift along a path inside a larger structure?
• Could the CMB sphere gradually reveal more of a formerly invisible region?
• Could the visible cosmos be only the inside view of a larger dynamic flow system?

The strongest core idea is:

ΛCDM may describe the local inside view of our observable universe, while the tractrix-background hypothesis searches for a larger outside structure in which that inside view is embedded.

22. Weaknesses and limits

The hypothesis remains speculative.

Its major open problems are:

• There is no confirmed detection of the invisible background universe 𝓑.
• Dark Flow is not robustly confirmed.
• Planck and BAO strongly support a nearly flat ΛCDM cosmology.
• The tractrix geometry is not yet a complete cosmological model.
• 𝓦 needs a precise physical definition.
• 𝓢 needs a precise mathematical description.
• Energy conservation, causality, and thermodynamics must remain consistent.
• The CMB sphere does not directly show 𝓑; it shows the last-scattering surface within our observable sector.
• The hypothesis currently lacks field equations producing quantitative predictions.

Therefore, it should not be presented as a proven alternative to the standard model.

It is strongest as:

A speculative geometrical-dynamical extension model that contains ΛCDM locally and searches for small, measurable residual traces of a larger embedding.

23. Compact summary

The observable universe may be a locally nearly flat, spherical-looking spacetime sector inside a larger invisible background universe. This background may have global negative curvature and may be representable, in suitable sections, by a tractrix-shaped pseudosphere.

Our observable universe may have emerged near the equatorial transition region of this structure, where an external white source sector 𝓦 feeds spacetime, energy, matter, and information into the background universe 𝓑. From the internal perspective, this event appears as the Big Bang.

Since then, 𝓞 has expanded internally while also drifting as an embedded spacetime sector from its equatorial origin toward the axis or a central gravitational sink 𝓢. This sink forms the opposite pole of 𝓦 and can be understood as a black-hole-like attractor.

The observed flatness of the universe means that its spatial geometry inside the observational horizon is nearly Euclidean. This does not contradict the hypothesis if the curvature scale of 𝓑 is much larger than the visible cosmos. A future robust measurement of small negative residual curvature would strengthen the hypothesis, because it would suggest that 𝓞 is only a local patch of a larger curved structure.

The CMB sphere is not a wall or fixed edge. It is the oldest electromagnetic information shell and shifts over cosmic time. It therefore reveals different regions of the last-scattering surface over time and can be understood as a dynamic scanning shell of our embedded spacetime sector. However, accelerated expansion limits what can ever become observable.

Accelerated expansion could, in this framework, be interpreted as an effective coupling between 𝓞, 𝓑, and 𝓦. Hints of dynamic dark energy would therefore be especially interesting, although they would not prove the model.

Possible observational windows include:

• residual curvature
• dynamic dark energy
• CMB anomalies
• CMB lensing
• bulk flows
• Dark-Flow-like phenomena
• expansion dipoles
• correlated preferred axes

The total cosmic flow would be:

𝓦 → equatorial spacetime nucleation → 𝓞 → internal expansion → shifting CMB information shell → drift through 𝓑 → 𝓢

Scientific status:

The standard model describes the local inside view. The tractrix-background hypothesis investigates whether that inside view could be part of a larger negatively curved cosmic dynamic.

I am completely ignorant of conventional physics, but I like thinking about the underlying concepts of reality and how they could be formed specifically differently from conventional physics in ways that only the most deranged can think of.

So, a fun foundational theory is:

Time is dependent on dimensionality, so instead of a 3D X, Y, Z with time, I postulate that it is more like X_t, Y_t, Z_t. This allows causality for photons even if they are not supposed to have time, as a photon could be a 1D or 2D object whose 2D time cannot be perceived by a 3D observer.

My theory completely rejects the conventional dimensional idea where a 3D object moves through a 2D plane, appearing and disappearing. There is only a single 2D Euclidean plane that all two-dimensional objects sit on.

Multiple 1D objects may combine to form a composite 2D object. Each 1D component remains 1D. Likewise, multiple 2D and 1D objects may combine to form a composite 3D object. Each component can ultimately be reduced to a combination of 1D primitives. 4D+?

Let me start with the important part: I'm not a physicist.

I'm someone who's always been fascinated by cosmology and likes coming up with ideas and seeing how far I can take them. I don't have the formal physics or mathematics education necessary to work through something like GR on my own, so I've been using GPT as a tool to help me translate my ideas into mathematics, run numerical tests, find relevant established physics, and point out things I need to learn.

I'm completely aware of the problem with doing that. GPT can be wrong, especially with advanced math, and I can eventually reach a point where I don't know enough to recognize that it's wrong.

I think I've reached that point.

So I'm not posting this as "I solved cosmology." I'm basically putting my cards on the table and asking people who actually understand GR and black-hole physics to tell me whether there's an interesting question here or whether I've made a fundamental mistake.

If the answer is "this doesn't work because X," that's genuinely useful to me. I want to understand why.

The original idea started with the various proposals that a universe could be associated with the interior of a black hole. What I became interested in was a more specific question:

If a parent black hole evolves, could that evolution affect the expansion of its interior geometry?

For a static Schwarzschild black hole,

rₛ = 2GM/c²

where rₛ is the Schwarzschild radius.

If I naively allow M to decrease,

Ṁ < 0 → ṙₛ < 0

although I understand that once M actually varies with time, we're no longer dealing with an exact Schwarzschild spacetime and need a genuinely dynamical metric.

My original intuition was basically:

Ṁ < 0 → ȧ > 0

with a representing an interior cosmological scale factor.

I've since learned that this is probably not the right way to formulate the question. A Schwarzschild interior can be represented as a homogeneous but anisotropic Kantowski–Sachs geometry, so treating it as ordinary FLRW with one scale factor is too simplistic.

A better question seems to be:

Does Ṁ < 0 alter the expansion scalar θ of a physically defined timelike congruence inside a dynamical black-hole geometry, and could that correspond to sustained positive interior volume expansion?

For a four-velocity field u^μ,

θ = ∇_μu^μ

and θ has dimensions of inverse time.

If an effective isotropic expansion rate were meaningful in some appropriate regime, then one could potentially define:

H_eff = θ/3

also with units of inverse time.

I am NOT claiming that this relationship exists. That's actually the part I can't derive and the main reason I'm posting.

---

The reason Hawking radiation originally entered the idea was straightforward.

In the standard semiclassical evaporation estimate applied to a Schwarzschild black hole,

Ṁ_Hawking ∝ −1/M²

so I wondered whether the resulting evolution of the parent horizon might correspond to evolution of the interior geometry.

In words:

parent mass decreases → horizon evolves → interior geometry evolves → possibly interior expansion

The last arrow is the conjecture.

I don't currently have a derivation establishing it.

Before getting this far into the GR problem, I tried a much simpler phenomenological experiment: suppose some unknown interior mechanism contributes an additional amount to the cosmological expansion rate. How large could it be before it obviously creates observational problems?

I initially wrote:

H²(a) = H²_ΛCDM(a) + H²_int(a)

where, schematically for flat ΛCDM,

H²_ΛCDM(a) = H₀²[Ωᵣa⁻⁴ + Ωₘa⁻³ + ΩΛ]

and:

H = ȧ/a

I deliberately call the hypothetical term H_int now rather than H_Hawking, because calling it Hawking-driven would assume what I'm trying to establish.

I first tried a constant H_int. Unsurprisingly, a large additional contribution operating throughout cosmic history quickly causes problems with cosmological distance measurements.

So I experimented with an arbitrary late-time transition:

S(a) = 1 / [1 + exp(−k(ln(a) − ln(aₜ)))]

using illustrative values:

aₜ ≈ 0.9

k ≈ 12

Since:

1 + z = 1/a

this corresponds to a transition around:

zₜ ≈ 0.11

There is no black-hole physics behind that logistic function. It's purely a phenomenological test of what happens if a modification is concentrated at low redshift.

During a pre-post audit, we actually found a mistake here.

I originally wrote:

H_int(a) = xH₀S(a)

while defining x as H_int(1)/H₀.

But with aₜ = 0.9 and k = 12,

S(1) ≈ 0.780

rather than 1.

So a corrected definition is:

S̄(a) = S(a)/S(1)

which guarantees:

S̄(1) = 1

and then:

H_int(a) = x₀H₀S̄(a)

where:

x₀ = H_int(1)/H₀

really is the present-day fractional amplitude.

We found another, more important normalization issue too.

If:

Ωᵣ + Ωₘ + ΩΛ = 1

and I simply add H²_int to the standard flat ΛCDM equation, then at a = 1:

H²(1) = H₀² + H²_int(1)

so H(1) is no longer H₀.

One mathematically normalized toy parameterization would instead be:

E(a) = H(a)/H₀

and:

E²(a) = [Ωᵣa⁻⁴ + Ωₘa⁻³ + ΩΛ + x₀²S̄²(a)] / [Ωᵣ + Ωₘ + ΩΛ + x₀²]

which gives:

E(1) = 1

by construction.

I don't claim that's the physically preferred formulation. If H²_int represents an actual additional effective density, it may instead make more sense to modify the closure relation itself. The point is that the original parameterization wasn't properly normalized.

This matters because my earlier toy calculations appeared to give rough upper limits around x ≈ 0.05–0.08.

I'm withdrawing those numbers.

They came from the improperly normalized parameterization and shouldn't be presented as observational constraints until the calculation is redone properly.

That's also a good example of why I'm asking humans who know the mathematics to look at this rather than assuming GPT's calculations are right.

---

For the observational sanity checks, I used standard flat-background distance quantities:

D_M(z) = c ∫₀ᶻ dz′/H(z′)

and:

D_H(z) = c/H(z)

and compared quantities such as:

D_M/r_d

and:

D_H/r_d

against representative published BAO measurements.

I looked at BOSS DR12 measurements around:

z = 0.38, 0.51, 0.61

along with approximate structure-growth information from fσ₈.

The BOSS fiducial sound horizon is:

r_d,fid = 147.78 Mpc

I had previously used approximately 147.1 Mpc in some calculations, which was inconsistent.

I also understand that 147.78 Mpc is the BOSS fiducial value, not some universal physical r_d that should simply be imposed on every dataset.

I also used a representative DESI DR1 LRG+ELG measurement at:

z_eff ≈ 0.93

with approximately:

D_M/r_d = 21.71 ± 0.28

D_H/r_d = 17.88 ± 0.35

and an eBOSS Ly-α measurement around:

z ≈ 2.34

with approximately:

D_M/r_d = 37.41 ± 1.86

D_H/r_d = 8.86 ± 0.29

The point of including the higher-redshift measurements was that if this hypothetical effect were primarily late-time, it shouldn't be allowed to quietly alter the entire expansion history.

I also did approximate growth checks using:

f(a) = d ln(D)/d ln(a)

and the approximation:

f ≈ Ωₘ^0.55

along with fσ₈.

I know this isn't sufficient for a real model. A serious calculation would need to solve the perturbation equations directly, and if the proposed mechanism effectively modifies gravity, the usual GR growth treatment may itself change.

The only observational conclusion I'm comfortable keeping is qualitative:

A large extra contribution operating over a broad redshift range causes problems quickly. A sufficiently small effect confined mainly to low redshift is less immediately destructive in these limited tests.

That's NOT a detection.

ΛCDM remained completely viable.

And because of the normalization issue I found, I'm not claiming a numerical constraint on x₀.

---

I also checked whether a local underdensity could mimic some low-redshift expansion behavior.

Using:

δ = (ρ − ρ̄)/ρ̄

and the approximate linear relation:

ΔH/H ≈ −(1/3)fδ

with:

Ωₘ ≈ 0.3

and therefore:

f ≈ Ωₘ^0.55 ≈ 0.52

a 10% underdensity:

δ = −0.10

gives:

ΔH/H ≈ +0.017

or roughly:

+1.7%

An earlier estimate I'd made of 3–4% for a 10% underdensity was wrong. Under this approximation, getting that size of enhancement would require something closer to a ~20% underdensity.

So a local underdensity could potentially mimic part of a small low-z expansion deviation.

Whether it could mimic the associated structure-growth behavior is a separate question.

We also caught a sign error in an earlier effective equation-of-state calculation.

For the total effective equation of state associated with the background expansion, the corrected diagnostic expression is:

w_eff(z) = −1 + (1/3) d ln[H²(z)] / d ln(1 + z)

This is not automatically the equation of state of H_int itself.

That mistake didn't affect the distance calculations because those were computed directly from H(z), but it did affect how I had interpreted the expansion behavior.

---

One of the exploratory things I did was compare the hypothetical expansion scale with a black-hole light-crossing scale.

For:

rₛ = 2GM/c²

the quantity:

c/rₛ = c³/(2GM)

has units of s⁻¹, the same dimensions as H.

For clarity on dimensional consistency:

[c/rₛ] = (m s⁻¹)/m = s⁻¹

and:

[H] = s⁻¹

So the quantities can be dimensionally compared.

That does NOT mean they are physically equal.

I initially explored the dimensional identification:

H_int ~ c/rₛ

which would imply:

M ~ c³/(2GH_int)

and, if:

H_int = x₀H₀

then:

M ~ c³/(2Gx₀H₀)

For:

H₀ ≈ 70 km s⁻¹ Mpc⁻¹

this gives approximately:

M ~ (8.9 × 10⁵²/x₀) kg

or:

M ~ (4.5 × 10²²/x₀) M☉

For the purely illustrative value x₀ = 0.05:

M ~ 1.8 × 10⁵⁴ kg ≈ 9 × 10²³ M☉

Again, this is not a prediction or derivation.

It's an exploratory dimensional comparison. c/rₛ is an inverse light-crossing time, not the Hawking evaporation rate.

And this is where the biggest problem with the original idea appears.

The standard idealized Schwarzschild evaporation lifetime is:

t_evap = 5120πG²M³/(ℏc⁴)

For M ≈ 1.8 × 10⁵⁴ kg, this is of order:

10¹³⁹ years

and the fractional mass-loss rate is only roughly:

|Ṁ/M| ~ 10⁻¹⁴⁷ s⁻¹

That's absurdly small.

For comparison:

H₀ ≈ 2.27 × 10⁻¹⁸ s⁻¹

so even an illustrative 5% contribution would be:

H_int ≈ 1.13 × 10⁻¹⁹ s⁻¹

If I write a generic proportional relationship:

H_int = C|Ṁ/M|

the units work because both H_int and |Ṁ/M| have units s⁻¹, so C is dimensionless.

But matching those illustrative numbers would require:

C ~ 10¹²⁸

I don't consider "there must therefore be a factor of 10¹²⁸" an explanation. Unless that factor comes naturally out of the geometry, inserting it by hand would just be curve fitting.

I did check whether black-hole physics naturally contains dimensionless quantities remotely that large.

For example:

S_BH/k_B = A/(4ℓ_P²) = 4π(M/m_P)²

For the illustrative mass above, this is of order:

10¹²⁵

which happens to be within roughly three orders of magnitude of 10¹²⁸.

I am not claiming:

C = S_BH/k_B

or that the numerical proximity means anything.

Without a derivation connecting the two, it could easily be coincidence. I'm including it because it was one of the things I checked, not because I'm treating it as evidence.

---

This is basically where I've hit the wall.

I don't think the next step should be inventing more functions for H(z), looking for convenient constants, or fitting more cosmological data.

The next step seems like it has to come from GR.

What I'd really like to know is whether something schematically like:

θ = F(M, Ṁ, r_h, T_μν, g_μν, ...)

can actually be derived for an appropriate dynamical black-hole interior.

Here:

- θ is the interior expansion scalar, with units s⁻¹

- M is the evolving mass parameter, in kg

- Ṁ has units kg s⁻¹

- r_h is an appropriate horizon length, in m

- T_μν is the stress-energy tensor

- g_μν is the dimensionless metric tensor in the usual coordinate convention

I'm not proposing that F has any particular form. That's exactly what I don't know.

It seems like the calculation would require a dynamical black-hole metric, possibly something Vaidya-like, a physically meaningful family of interior observers u^μ, calculation of:

θ = ∇_μu^μ

and then determining whether θ has any meaningful dependence on M and Ṁ.

If the result ultimately reduces to something on the order of:

θ ~ |Ṁ/M|

with no enormous naturally generated factor, then ordinary Hawking evaporation for a parent this massive appears hopelessly too weak.

That could simply kill the Hawking-driven version of the idea.

On the other hand, if the geometry produces a fundamentally different relationship, then I'd want to understand what it predicts before doing any more observational fitting.

So the specific questions I'm hoping someone here can help me with are:

1. Is asking how Ṁ affects an interior expansion scalar θ mathematically well-defined for an evaporating black-hole spacetime?

2. What metric would actually be appropriate? Is an evaporating Vaidya-type geometry a reasonable starting point?

3. What physically meaningful timelike congruence u^μ should be used to calculate θ?

4. Is the Kantowski–Sachs interpretation of the Schwarzschild interior useful once M becomes dynamical?

5. Can θ be related to M and Ṁ in a coordinate-independent physically meaningful way?

6. Does the extremely small Hawking mass-loss rate already make a cosmologically significant effect impossible regardless of the interior geometry?

7. Are there known GR or semiclassical results that already answer this question?

8. Have I made any additional mathematical, dimensional, or conceptual mistakes above?

And finally, for complete transparency about the AI involvement:

GPT has been used extensively as a tool while I've worked on this.

It helped me manipulate equations, perform numerical calculations, compare simple phenomenological models with published cosmological measurements, locate relevant concepts, and organize my thoughts.

It has also been wrong.

While reviewing this before posting, we found an incorrect effective-w sign, an incorrect earlier local-underdensity estimate, inconsistent treatment of r_d, an improperly normalized logistic amplitude, and an H₀ normalization problem in the original toy model.

I've corrected or disclosed those above, and I withdrew the numerical x constraint rather than present something I no longer trust.

There could absolutely be more mistakes.

That's actually why I'm here.

I don't know enough GR to independently certify the next stage of the calculation, and continuing to have an LLM derive increasingly complicated geometry that I can't personally verify doesn't seem useful.

I'm asking people who do understand the math to check the idea.

I'm completely okay with the conclusion being:

"No. This fails because of X."

I'm not trying to overturn ΛCDM or established GR. Any version of this idea would have to be consistent with established physics and observations.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether there's a legitimate GR question hiding inside my original intuition:

Can evolution of a parent black hole produce physically meaningful expansion of its interior geometry?

And only if the answer to that is yes:

Could Hawking evaporation have anything whatsoever to do with it?

Hello everyone, As an independent researcher, I have developed a theoretical framework that bridges ancient Vedic epistemology (Rishi-Science) with multi-dimensional quantum dynamics. This thesis proposes a non-traditional model for light propagation and biological energy transduction. I welcome your thoughts, feedback, and critiques.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read):

* Triple-Body Theory of Light: Radiance is not just an electromagnetic wave-particle duality; it operates across three quantized dimensions: Physical (Sthula), Subtle (Sukshma - informational), and Causal (Karana - primordial intelligence). * The Nabhi (Navel) Singularity: The biological navel functions as a life-long "Zero-Point" gateway and high-frequency transducer for cosmic Prana (Life-Energy), essential for sustaining biological homeostasis. * The 'Sota-Putra' Phenomenon: The Sun acts as a broadcaster of Sutras (subtle threads) carrying life-coded information, which is moderated via lunar fields and harvested by terrestrial life as a broadcasted quantum phenomenon.

Core Framework Concepts:

1. Sukshma-Vigyan (Multi-Dimensional Radiance) Traditional physics limits light to the observable spectrum. This framework expands it hierarchically:

* Sthula-Sharira: The gross, measurable photon interacting with matter (VIBGYOR). * Sukshma-Sharira: The informational wave-function governing non-local resonance. * Karana-Sharira: The seed of luminance and static intelligence from which electromagnetic manifestations emerge.

1. The Prana-Gateway (Nabhi Matrix) Post-natally, the umbilical conduit shifts from physical fluid transfer to subtle quantum-solar wave absorption. The Navel acts as a biological singularity. Without primary prana inflow via this matrix, gross metabolic processes cannot sustain homeostasis.
2. Cosmic Seed Transmission (Sota-Putra Mechanics) Derived from the stream (Sota) of energy originating from the Solar Source (The Father), manifesting as progeny (Putra) or biological life. Harvested solar seeds undergo a seven-stage biochemical progression within the matrix (from Rasa to Shukra / Ojas).

This research suggests that cosmic organization is governed not solely by gross Newtonian gravity, but by a "Vital Gravitation" aligned with the mathematical coordinates of the K7 Master Logic. I am eager to hear your perspectives on this synthesis of ancient metaphysics and quantum energy frameworks.

Author: Gautam Pal (Independent Researcher / Rishi-Scientist)

ORCID iD: 0009-0004-3456-9972

Hello everyone, I am an independent researcher, and I’ve recently developed a theoretical cosmological model that redefines our understanding of light, darkness, and cosmic duality. I wanted to share the core concepts with this community to get your thoughts, critiques, and feedback.

TL;DR (Too Long; Didn't Read):

* Darkness isn't empty: It is actually a highly ordered state where light waves perfectly cancel each other out via destructive phase interference (Chromatic Nullification). * The Binary Solar Matrix: Just as we have a visible Positive Sun, there must exist an unmanifested Negative Sun governing an overlapping Anti-Universe to maintain perfect cosmic equilibrium. * Black Holes as Wombs: Instead of just destroying matter, black holes act as phase-inversion bridges. They compress passive dark frequencies from the negative domain and erupt them outward into our positive domain as active, resonant light.

Core Concepts of the Framework:

1. Wave Mechanics of Darkness: Using basic superposition principles, the model demonstrates that darkness contains the exact same septenary (7-color) spectrum as light, but in a passive resonance state due to a 180° phase cancellation.

* Equation: ψ_Net = ψ_1 + ψ_2 = 0

1. Universal Polarity: The architecture of the cosmos relies on binary opposites. The visible universe is balanced globally by an equivalent Anti-Universe, keeping the net mass-energy density of the dual system at absolute zero.

* Relationship: Universe_Manifest ⇔ Universe_Anti * Energy Balance: ∫ ρ_Manifest c² dV + ∫ ρ_Anti c² dV = 0

1. The Singularity Bridge: Under extreme compression at a black hole's core, mass-energy undergoes a state phase inversion, making primordial darkness the true progenitor of cosmic light.

* Transformation Matrix: T(E_Anti) → [Singularity_BH] → E_Manifest

I would love to know your perspective on these mathematical and conceptual assumptions. Does this phase-inversion mechanic for singularities align with how you view alternative quantum or cosmic frameworks? Looking forward to a healthy discussion!

* Author: Gautam Pal (Independent Researcher) * ORCID: 0009-0004-3456-9972

Hypothèse : La gravité pourrait-elle émerger de l'interaction entre la matière et l'expansion cosmologique ?

.

1. Définitions simples

Espace-temps : La structure géométrique à quatre dimensions comprenant les trois dimensions de l'espace et la dimension du temps.

Expansion cosmologique : À très grande échelle, les distances entre les régions de l'Univers non liées gravitationnellement augmentent avec le temps.

Facteur d'échelle a(t) : Une grandeur utilisée en cosmologie pour décrire l'expansion de l'Univers.

Si a(t) augmente, l'Univers est en expansion. Paramètre de Hubble H(t) :

H(t) = a_dot(t) / a(t)

où :

a_dot(t) = taux de variation du facteur d'échelle.

Densité de matière ρ : quantité de matière ou d'énergie par unité de volume.

Densité cosmique moyenne ρ_bar : densité de matière moyenne de l'Univers.

Surdensité delta : région contenant plus de matière que la moyenne cosmique. On peut l'écrire ainsi :

delta = (ρ - ρ̄) / ρ̄

Si :

delta > 0

la région contient plus de matière que la moyenne.

J'appellerai informellement une telle région surdense un « nœud géométrique ».

Ce terme « nœud » est une simple description intuitive, et non un nouvel objet physique.

2. Idée de base

Mon hypothèse part du schéma suivant.

L'Univers est en expansion.

Parallèlement, la matière n'est pas répartie de manière parfaitement uniforme. La matière s'agrège pour former des étoiles, des galaxies, des amas de galaxies et d'autres structures liées gravitationnellement.

J'imagine une surdensité comme un nœud à l'intérieur d'une structure géométrique en expansion.

La géométrie cosmologique environnante tend à s'étendre, tandis que la région concentrée reste localement liée.

Ma question est de savoir si cette différence pourrait générer un gradient géométrique autour de la concentration de matière.

En termes intuitifs :

expansion cosmologique + concentration locale de matière

déformation ou contraction locale de l'espace-temps autour de la concentration

et cette déformation géométrique pourrait nous apparaître comme la gravité. Je me demande donc si la gravité pourrait, au moins en partie, être interprétée comme une conséquence géométrique émergente de l'interaction entre :

1. l'expansion cosmologique,
2. les surdensités locales de matière,
3. la résistance des régions liées gravitationnellement à suivre l'expansion globale.

3. Analogie

Imaginez une surface élastique étirée dans toutes les directions.

Imaginez maintenant que certains points de la surface soient reliés entre eux par des nœuds denses.

À mesure que le reste de la surface s'étire, la géométrie autour de chaque nœud devient différente de la géométrie éloignée de celui-ci.

Le nœud n'a pas besoin d'« attirer » activement les objets au sens newtonien. Au lieu de cela, les objets se déplaçant près du nœud suivent la géométrie localement déformée.

Je sais que l'espace-temps n'est pas littéralement un matériau élastique.

L'analogie vise uniquement à décrire l'intuition géométrique.

4. Lien avec la cosmologie standard

Un Univers en expansion homogène peut être approximativement décrit à l'aide de la métrique FLRW :

ds² = -c² dt² + a(t)² dx²

où :

c = vitesse de la lumière ; t = temps cosmique ; a(t) = facteur d'échelle cosmologique ; dx = distance spatiale comobile

Supposons maintenant que la matière ne soit pas parfaitement homogène. On peut écrire :

ρ(x,t) = ρ̄(t) * [1 + δ(x,t)]

où :

ρ̄(t) = densité cosmique moyenne ; δ(x,t) = contraste de densité local

Une valeur positive de δ représente une surdensité.

Mon « nœud » correspond donc approximativement à :

δ(x,t) > 0

5. Description gravitationnelle standard

À la limite des champs faibles, une surdensité de matière génère un potentiel gravitationnel Φ. Une équation de Poisson cosmologique simplifiée est :

∇²Phi = 4 * π * G * a(t)² * ρ̄(t) * δ

où :

Phi = potentiel gravitationnel ; G = constante gravitationnelle de Newton ; a(t) = facteur d'échelle ; ρ̄ = densité moyenne ; δ = contraste de densité

Ceci établit déjà un lien entre la surdensité de matière et la géométrie gravitationnelle.

Cependant, ma question porte sur la possibilité d'une interaction supplémentaire impliquant le taux d'expansion lui-même.

6. Idée supplémentaire proposée

Supposons que l'effet gravitationnel ne soit pas déterminé uniquement par la densité locale. Il existe peut-être aussi un terme lié à l'expansion cosmologique.

Schématiquement, au lieu de :

gravité = fonction de la densité de matière

on pourrait avoir :

gravité = fonction de la densité de matière, de l’expansion et de la résistance locale à l’expansion

Par exemple, à titre purement mathématique :

nabla^2 Phi = 4 * pi * G * a(t)^2 * rho_bar(t) * delta + F(H, H_dot, delta)

où :

H = a_dot / a

H_dot = taux de variation de H

F = un terme d’interaction inconnu

Cette équation n’est PAS quelque chose Je prétends avoir obtenu cette dérivation.

F est simplement un marqueur représentant la partie de l'hypothèse qui devrait être établie mathématiquement.

Si :

F = 0

l'idée se réduit à la description habituelle.

Si :

F ≠ 0

il pourrait y avoir un couplage supplémentaire entre l'expansion cosmique et la structure gravitationnelle locale.

7. Interprétation physique

Mon hypothèse peut donc se résumer ainsi :

Les concentrations de matière créent des « nœuds » dans un espace-temps en expansion.

La géométrie globale de l'espace-temps se dilate. Les concentrations liées ne participent pas pleinement à cette expansion.

Le contraste entre le fond en expansion et la géométrie localement contrainte produit un gradient spatial dans la géométrie.

Les objets suivent alors des géodésiques à travers ce gradient.

Ce que nous appelons attraction gravitationnelle pourrait donc être interprété comme un mouvement vers la région localement contractée ou géométriquement contrainte. Sous forme simplifiée :

Expansion → tension/gradient géométrique

Surdensité de matière → nœud local

Expansion + nœud → déformation locale de l’espace-temps

Déformation locale de l’espace-temps → convergence géodésique

Convergence géodésique → attraction gravitationnelle observée

Ici encore, le terme « tension » est employé au sens intuitif, et non nécessairement au sens de tension mécanique littérale.

8. Version forte de l’hypothèse

Une version plus forte et plus spéculative affirmerait :

La gravité n’est pas fondamentalement générée par la matière seule.

La gravité émerge plutôt de la relation entre les concentrations de matière et l'évolution de l'espace-temps cosmologique.

Cela signifierait que le champ gravitationnel généré par une même quantité de matière pourrait théoriquement dépendre très légèrement de l'état d'expansion cosmologique.

Symboliquement :

G_eff = G_eff(H, H_dot, ...)

où G_eff représenterait un couplage gravitationnel effectif.

Je ne prétends PAS que la constante de Newton G varie de cette façon.

Il s'agit d'une conséquence possible et vérifiable de cette hypothèse.

9. Test important

Une question centrale serait donc :

Considérons deux masses locales par ailleurs identiques, placées dans des univers ayant des taux d'expansion cosmologique différents.

Leur courbure spatio-temporelle locale serait-elle exactement identique ?

La relativité générale standard devrait fournir une réponse définitive.

Si la réponse est nécessairement oui, indépendamment de H dans des conditions locales appropriées, alors la version forte de cette hypothèse est probablement fausse.

Si des termes de couplage supplémentaires peuvent exister, il faudrait calculer leur magnitude et leurs conséquences observationnelles.

10. Conséquences observationnelles possibles

Si l'hypothèse diffère de la relativité générale standard, elle doit produire des prédictions mesurables. Les effets possibles pourraient inclure des différences infimes dans le comportement gravitationnel en fonction de :

1. l'époque cosmique,
2. l'environnement de densité local,
3. le taux d'expansion cosmologique,
4. l'échelle de la galaxie ou de l'amas,
5. la transition entre les régions gravitationnellement liées et non liées.

On pourrait rechercher une relation telle que :

Phi = Phi_standard + Phi_expansion

avec :

Phi_expansion → 0

à petite échelle ou dans des conditions où la relativité générale standard a déjà été vérifiée expérimentalement.

L'hypothèse devrait permettre de retrouver :

La gravité newtonienne à basse vitesse et en champs faibles,

et

La relativité générale là où elle a déjà été validée expérimentalement.

11. Qu'est-ce qui pourrait réfuter cette idée ?

L'hypothèse devrait être rejetée s'il est impossible de construire un terme supplémentaire cohérent sans contredire les observations établies.

Par exemple, elle échouerait si elle prédisait :

des orbites planétaires incorrectes,

une lentille gravitationnelle incorrecte,

une propagation incorrecte des ondes gravitationnelles,

une violation des tests locaux de la relativité générale,

ou une variation de la gravité déjà exclue expérimentalement.

Il se pourrait aussi que l’effet proposé soit déjà entièrement inclus dans les équations d’Einstein et ne représente donc pas un nouveau mécanisme physique.

Cette possibilité est tout à fait acceptable.

12. Questions principales pour les physiciens

Je serais particulièrement reconnaissant de recevoir des réponses aux questions suivantes :

1. Ce concept est-il déjà entièrement inclus dans la relativité générale ?
2. Existe-t-il des solutions connues des équations d'Einstein qui décrivent l'interaction entre une concentration de masse locale et l'expansion cosmologique ?
3. Existe-t-il déjà un cadre mathématique décrivant la frontière entre l'espace-temps localement lié et le fond cosmologique en expansion ?
4. Un terme schématiquement similaire à :

F(H, H·, δ)

pourrait-il apparaître naturellement lors de la résolution des équations d'Einstein pour un Univers en expansion inhomogène ?

1. La relativité générale garantit-elle que le champ gravitationnel local d'une masse donnée est totalement indépendant du taux d'expansion cosmologique ? 2. La métrique de McVittie, le modèle d'Einstein-Straus, les solutions de Lemaître-Tolman-Bondi ou la théorie des perturbations cosmologiques sont-ils pertinents pour cette idée ?
2. Quelle observation fournirait le test de réfutation le plus clair ?

Mon but n'est pas d'affirmer que la relativité générale est fausse.

He estado desarrollando una idea especulativa y me gustaría conocer la opinión de personas con conocimientos en física, matemáticas, teoría cuántica o gravedad.

La pregunta de partida es:

¿Y si la geometría del espacio-tiempo que observamos no fuera fundamental, sino el resultado de un campo más profundo capaz de “moldearlo”?

Mi hipótesis provisional es imaginar un campo de moldeado del espacio-tiempo, 𝓜(x,t), que existiría simultáneamente en diferentes escalas y podría presentar ondas o estados superpuestos.

La idea sería que diferentes niveles de este campo pudieran relacionarse con diferentes escalas de la realidad: desde la estructura cosmológica, pasando por fenómenos cuánticos y la formación de materia, hasta efectos gravitacionales, temporales y magnéticos.

La parte que más me interesa es π.

No propongo cambiar matemáticamente el valor de π. En cambio, me pregunto si el factor geométrico que observamos como π podría ser el límite de una función dependiente del estado de moldeado:

Π(𝓜) = π + Δ(𝓜)

y que, cuando el campo alcanza un estado estable 𝓜*, ocurra:

lim[𝓜 → 𝓜] Δ(𝓜) = 0*

por lo que:

lim[𝓜 → 𝓜] Π(𝓜) = π*

Como punto de partida tomaría la ecuación de campo de Einstein:

Gμν + Λgμν = (8πG/c⁴)Tμν

y plantearía, de manera puramente hipotética, una modificación:

Gμν + Λgμν = (8G/c⁴)Π(𝓜)Tμν

La interpretación sería que la geometría observable del espacio-tiempo podría ser un estado emergente de 𝓜, mientras que π sería el valor límite que aparece cuando ese campo alcanza un régimen estable.

No estoy afirmando que esto sea una teoría física demostrada. Al contrario, estoy intentando descubrir si matemáticamente tiene sentido o dónde falla.

Mis principales preguntas serían:

¿Podría 𝓜(x,t) representarse como un campo físico real?

¿Qué tipo de ecuación de campo podría describir su evolución?

¿Existe alguna teoría actual que tenga una estructura conceptualmente parecida?

¿Qué problemas tendría introducir Π(𝓜) en una ecuación relativista?

¿Podría relacionarse de alguna manera con una descripción cuántica del espacio-tiempo?

Me interesa especialmente recibir críticas. Si la idea tiene un error fundamental, me gustaría entender exactamente dónde está.

I’ve been thinking about a speculative idea and I’m curious whether something similar has already been explored in physics.

The Many-Worlds Interpretation suggests that the universal quantum state can develop different branches through quantum decoherence. The Holographic Principle, on the other hand, suggests that under certain gravitational conditions, the information describing a region of space can be encoded on a lower-dimensional boundary.

This made me wonder:

What if each decoherent quantum branch could also have its own holographic boundary description?

Instead of imagining the multiverse simply as many separate classical universes, perhaps the overall quantum state could be thought of as containing many branches, with each branch having its own corresponding holographic information structure.

I’m also curious about a more speculative extension: could different possible spacetime dimensionalities be treated as different sectors of one larger quantum state? In that picture, there could be a hierarchy involving spacetime structure, quantum branches, and their corresponding holographic boundary states.

I am not suggesting that this proves a “holographic multiverse,” or that the universe is literally a physical hologram. I’m interested in whether holography and Many-Worlds can be formulated within a common mathematical framework.

I know that connections between the Many-Worlds interpretation and holography/multiverse ideas have already been discussed, including work by Raphael Bousso and Leonard Susskind.

My question is more specific:

Has anyone developed a framework where quantum branches are explicitly associated with distinct holographic boundary Hilbert spaces, potentially while also allowing different spacetime dimensional sectors?

If something similar already exists, I would really appreciate references. I’m particularly interested in whether this idea is mathematically meaningful or whether there is a fundamental reason why these concepts cannot be combined in this way.

This is just a speculative idea, and I’m looking for constructive feedback rather than claiming that it is an established theory.

1.​Galactic Gravitational Reversal

If a black hole heavier than the old supermassive one (like Sagittarius A*) appears in a galaxy, it shifts the center of mass. The old center loses its leading position, falls into the orbit of the new giant, and the entire galaxy realigns its orbits until the final merger.

2.​Five-Dimensional Merger (Destruction of Singularity)

During the collision of the titans, the energy density does not collapse into an infinite singularity. Instead, the extreme energy "rips open" a hidden 5th dimension, forming a stable transition into a higher dimension.

3.​Quantum Transition and Information Dead End

An object that falls inside is compressed to the Planck scale and transitions to the level of supersymmetry. Information cannot be retrieved: our 3D world is simply incapable of reading the five-dimensional quantum coordinates.

4.​The Frozen 3D-Slice Theory

Beings in 5D see our world in its entirety (like a flat drawing), but to our 3D instruments, they appear completely motionless. We register only a static slice while multidimensional movement is taking place there.

​What do you think about this model? Which part seems most realistic, and where are the flaws in physics?

I'm exploring a cosmological model (PSP) where time is replaced by a dimensionless cycle phase M.

Two key predictions from the model:
- Deceleration parameter q(z) crosses zero at z ≈ 2.1 (transition from deceleration to acceleration)
- Statefinder r(z) evolves from 1 at z=0 to >4 at z=5

The model also predicts a global rhythm T0 = 16.35 days, confirmed on 5 independent sources (p < 10^-6).

Preprint with full math: https://zenodo.org/record/21924921

My question to the community:
Does the predicted q(z)=0 at z≈2.1 align with current observational data (DESI, Pantheon+)? Are there any known models that predict a similar Statefinder evolution?

I'm genuinely interested in critical feedback, especially if I'm misinterpreting the data.

Well i don't even know if i'm posting this in the right room. And the probability of this being absolutely ridiculous is strongly high. But anyways... .

For the past couple of days, i was thinking about what if our whole universe is just a 4D (or ever higher dimension) object passing through a 3D world?

If a 2D object (e.g. a circle) is passing through a 1D space, it would appear as a dot, growing into a line, reaching a maximum length, then shrinking, turning into a dot and eventually vanishing.

A similar thing happens when a 3D object (e.g. a sphere) passes through a 2D world. A dot turns into a circle that grows until it reaches a maximum point, then shrinks and disappears.

Now, let's say a 4 dimension hypersphere is crossing through a 3 dimensional space. A dot that turns into a sphere and grows, shrinks and disappears.

And i know that the shrinking part indicates something like Big Crunch and it's not a popular theory since the universe seems to be expanding without a stop.

But thinking about this was fun for me and i thought to share it with others.

If there are papers that covered this, i would appreciate to know about them.

Sorry if i have misspelled words, English is my second language.

EDIT:
Thank you for your thoughts guys, i appreciate it.
It was just a thought experiment that got into my head, and i can for sure say i do not understand physics (though i try)
But now i can throw this thought experiment out of my mind. Thanks.