PBS Space Time : “How The Penrose Singularity Theorem Predicts The End of Space Time”

Given energetic immutable point charges permeating a flat Euclidean space and time, emergence creates our universe.
NPQG unifies GR and QM and transforms ΛCDM.

This post was inspired by the following PBS Space Time episode.

This episode mostly focuses on geodesic curves and the advancements Penrose made with geodesics in proofs about singularities. Hawking then used the same technique applied to the Big Bang. I’m onboard with geodesics in their scales of applicability where spacetime æther is well behaved according to Einstein’s general relativity. However, I think that in the final approach to the singularity there must come a point where the discrete nature of electrinos and positrinos has a significant effect. The end of time and space are really the transition to the maximally dense Planck core where electrinos and positrinos no longer move relative to each other (end of local time) and a phase state where all structure has decomposed and we reach closest pack Planck spheres corresponding to the end of space.

I posted this question on the PBS Space Time discord server. “After discussion of black hole singularities as the end of time and space, the episode then moves on to the attached picture imagining a big crunch, big bang cyclic universe. Penrose also talks at length about the similarities of black holes and the big bang. Where is the scientific body of work that actually explores merging these concepts? That SMBH could achieve this hard limit where the geodesics meet and a state of maximum matter-energy density is reached? That cores could under certain situations jet matter-energy?”

I received a pleasant response from a physicist who has seen my NPQG posts previously.

Physicist : “The literature is diffuse. (Also, Penrose is behind an inordinate amount of the accessible stuff.) I haven’t personally seen, or recorded a link to, a comprehensive overview. That said, the canonical Big Crunch/Big Bang cyclic universe exemplar is a zero dark energy overall positive-curvature Friedmann-Walker cosmology (note that this is a pure General Relativistic construct; adding a quantum-mechanics substitute is like specifying how it’s perturbed). I think most of the literature on this was in the 1970’s ; the “failure mode” then was that you need the entropy values before/after to be incomparable.
I.e., since General Relativity doesn’t “really care” what rest mass and kinetic energy are, etc. you can have General Relativty+Planck-scale balls (it’ll be at least as numerically difficult as General-Relativity + Standard Model since the n-body problem is “computationally hard”)
What is not layman-obvious is that if you ignore the physics, there are “standard ways” to “surgery out” the common singularity; you’d want an extension-physics that at “sufficiently high densities/temperature” introduces a phase that is universally repulsive. The Standard Model already has a precedent for this (Higgs field phase transition at the transition from the electroweak regime to our regime) : “An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle” (author is one of my academic advisers) formally, “gluing out” a black hole singularity against a Big Bang singularity uses the same math as the Big Crunch/Big Bang gluing out and the same types of extension physics that allow one, should allow the other. Also see Wheeler’s “bag of gold” cosmology family.”

Mark : Thank you for your response and pointers to information. I don’t fully understand what you said, but I see a lot of things to follow up on. I did a quick read of your advisor’s paper – and I could follow up with some changes in perspective that might be worth considering. Also, I didn’t understand some of your terms like ‘surgery out’ and ‘gluing out’. I am less concerned with computational complexity at this point – since I think ultimately complexity is emergent from very simple ingredients to the universe. Let me just list a few of the things that are needed in a transformation that unites the inflation/big bang/expansion model with the galaxy SMBH model. I am going to draw a diagram illustrating what I am thinking, and if I can get that done I will come back and post it in the speculative-ideas channel so as not to clutter the episode channel.

  1. Spacetime implemented by Planck scale balls with very low kinetic energy in intergalactic space (2.7K). Don’t know if they are individual or form some very low energy construct in groups. I am inclined to think the latter since the balls would be charged.
  2. The two natural extremes of energy in the universe would be the Planck ball cores of SMBH and the intergalactic spacetime (not counting standard model particles flying/floating through – neutrinos, photons, the occasional proton.)
  3. So the diagram would be sort of topological – all SMBH core would have a common high energy/density state (zero entropy) and then via escape of that core, some of that matter-energy would eventually reach the lowest energy state of spacetime between galaxies.
  4. If the galaxy local duration of spacetime expansion from the escape of the Planck ball core to the lowest energy state were to take about 13.8 B years, then that might help wrangle existing observations to this transformed concept.

The paper the physicist mentioned is arXiv:hep-th/9402104v1 17 Feb 1994, “POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS OF THE QUANTUM THEORY OF GRAVITY — An Introduction to the Meduso-Anthropic Principle” by Louis Crane, Math department, KSU. Here are my comments:

  • Like many others this author discusses the concept of universe on the other side of the undefined “singularity”. Many SMBH yield many singularities, yield many child universes. The problem with this idea is that this concept creates these many child universes in some imaginary set of universes we know not where. Instead if the SMBH has some mechanism for the core to vent, perhaps via a new mechanism that drives the enormous jets, then we have a rather straightforward concept of the starting conditions of energy and matter that are exactly the same as those described in the inflationary big bang. Occam’s razor suggests we should consider the simpler solution. The issue of course is that NPQG needs more solid observational and/or mathematical evidence to encourage scientists to engage and contribute.
  • The paper contends, like many other theories, that OUR universe will experience heat death from continued expansion and spreading out of energy. Quite obviously in NPQG this can not happen, because expansion is local and matter-energy ultimately recycles and both are conserved. Since the NPQG universe is quasi-steady state, there is no overall universe scale expansion nor contraction.
  • The paper confuses the temperature in a black hole with the energy. Since science does not understand black holes, it fails to understand the relationship of black hole temperature, energy, and sizes. Perhaps the paper is only referring to the Hawking radiation. However, it is important to clarify that while temperature would decrease while approaching a black hole core, the electromagnetic energy would be increasing. This is because kinetic energy is being transformed into electromagnetic potential energy as the core is approached. In the core, the temperature is zero because there is no relative movement of the Planck particles. All energy is stored in attraction and repulsion of the maximally dense packed electrino and positrino Planck particles.
  • My final comment on the paper is that it is chock-full of non-scientific fantasy. Civilizations emerging in daughter universes with greater frequency over time. Mind influencing matter. Jellyfish. While there is nothing wrong with such kind of musing and imagination, I think it would belong more in a science fiction novel than in a paper posted to arXiv. That said, this 1994 paper does imagine very high energy nuclear (and beyond) reactions caused by many lasers impinging on a small area. That technology exists now in 2020. Between then and now some creative visionaries made that happen.

J Mark Morris : San Diego : California : November 28, 2020 : v1

By J Mark Morris

I am imagining and reverse engineering a model of nature and sharing my journey via social media. Join me! I would love to have collaborators in this open effort. To support this research please donate:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s