0
$\begingroup$

This question depends on my reading of Nikodem J. Poplawski's "Cosmology with torsion" (visible at https://arxiv.org/abs/1007.0587), an alternative version of cosmic inflation that's dependent on effects of torsion, in the interaction between fermions newly-materialized within the volume previously occupied by the mass of any large rotating star and the vastly-larger fermions of the star itself (after initiation of a gravitational collapse of that star by the complete expenditure of its nuclear fuel): Because all fermions spin, that interaction would realign the trajectories of many of the newly-materialized fermions, and greatly accelerate their passage over those trajectories, with their rate of passage eventually slowing, quasi-inertially, in their formation of a new "local universe" on smaller spatial and temporal scales, analogous in shape to the skin of a basketball.

As discussed in the article "Mystery Object Blurs Line Between Neutron Stars and Black Holes" in "The Scientific American" of June 30, 2020, the addition of mass to any rotating star otherwise apt to collapse into a neutron star would result in its collapse into a black hole instead. (The article hypothesizes that the added mass might be as small as "an apple", whereas, until the observation which it discusses, it would've been assumed to comprise a number of solar masses.) If any advanced civilization (either our own in its future, or others), convinced of the validity of Poplawski's past- and future-eternal cosmological model, would want to increase the frequency and density of whatever reiterations of the beings comprising its dominant species might occur by increasing the frequency and density of whatever recurrences of any such species' spatio-temporal environment might itself occur, then the proportion of black holes to neutron stars in its observable region would tend to increase.

In inflationary models based on 1915's General Relativity, fermions are idealized as "point-like", whereas in Poplawski's model (which is based on the Einstein-Cartan-Sciama-Kibble theory, developed by Einstein and Cartan in 1929 and modified, a few decades later, by Sciama and Kibble), they have a tiny spatial extent, which is, nevertheless, not as small as the Planck length. (In this connection, I'd like to mention the fact that the "strings" of string theory also have spatial extent: When equated to particles, they are idealized as tubes.)

The sequentially-smaller local universes of Poplawski's model (which, in his terminology, include our own, whose name is capitalized as "the" Universe) each inherit their direction of passage through time from their "parenting" LU, and the model itself requires no "singularity" of infinite density. It is falsifiable if there is no prevalent direction of rotation in the local universe, but, even in our observable part of it, so many factors are involved in the motion of astronomical objects that no such conclusion has yet been reached definitively.

I'm hoping, in this question, to verify whether physics might generally permit the incorporation of artifice (those additions of mass that I mentioned in my 2nd paragraph) into comparisons of the validity of cosmological models. (It appears to me that it would, as the 2nd law of thermodynamics, for example, was developed substantially through successful attempts to improve the efficiency of locomotives, but, as a child of wildly adversarial times, I'm not certain of that. )

I've been encouraged to post this question partly by Guth's hypothetical discussion of limitations and possibilities of artifical creation of local universes in the 1997 edition of his book "The Inflationary Universe", and partly by the 100 references (whose authors were much larger in number) itemized in Mandal's paper "Effects of torsion on the radiation fields in curved spacetime", in Physics Letters B of Sept. 2020 (currently available free online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135778), which challenges a torsion-free connection as one remaining unproven assumption of General Relativity.

$\endgroup$
17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is the question whether alien technology is allowed as an explanation in cosmology? $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Dec 26 '20 at 6:39
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Can you say again what this observational proof is, and how it is related to artifice? $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Dec 27 '20 at 13:28
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ So if I understand correctly, the idea is: If there are more stellar-mass black holes than expected, it could be because aliens are deliberately adding mass to neutron stars to turn them into black holes, in order to create more child universes... Please see arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/9402104 , where other reasons for creating black holes are mentioned, but which also considers child universes, albeit in a different context (a hypothetical scrambling of natural constants from one universe generation to the next, leading to cosmological natural selection for black hole fecundity). $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Dec 28 '20 at 5:24
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It's interesting but no one is showing a mathematical derivation of the predicted effect from the underlying equations of motion. Poplawski's 2010 talks about "small corrections to the FLRW metric" but doesn't tell us what form they take. Poplawski 2013 doi.org/10.1080/21672857.2013.11519725 ends with several cosmological dipoles but again doesn't explain how his model would produce them. Shamir 2021 cites a different big-bang-from-black-hole theory ("holographic big bang model") but the papers cited don't talk about the child universe inheriting the rotation of the black hole... $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter May 16 at 9:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ ... it's Shamir who introduces this idea. I hope what I'm saying is clear: you can't just say, the primordial black hole is spinning, therefore the child universe is rotating too, therefore the observations are explained. It needs to be shown that this is what the underlying theory actually predicts. Maybe it makes sense as a kind of turbulent fragmentation, a single big vortex fragmenting into billions of smaller vortices which become the galaxies, but there needs to be a calculation... btw arxiv.org/abs/2105.05208 is a survey of current cosmological anomalies. $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter May 16 at 10:00
1
$\begingroup$

Is artifice admissible into cosmological models of mainstream physics?

Sure.

If we consider that peer review process of Classical and Quantum Gravity is a sufficient criteria for mainstream cosmological theory then the following paper would be a sufficient evidence for this:

As we can see there are words “cosmology” and “civilizations” right in the title.

Though this particular paper seems more concerned about the future than the present (quote from the abstract):

We conclude that the existence of life, if certain advanced technologies are practical, could have a significant influence on the future large-scale evolution of the universe.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ For the benefit of anyone reading this Q&A, I'd like to point out that the assessment of both my question & A.V.S.' answer was reduced to zero by someone not caring to leave any commentary, which, to me, implies that that reduction may well have been made by someone motivated by considerations (perhaps philosophical or religious) not bearing on physics or mathematics. Although that reduction, nevertheless, apparently had some value to them under PSE's rating system, I'd consequently recommend that participants interested in physics disregard it. $\endgroup$ – Edouard Mar 1 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ For readers unfamiliar with details of the rating ("reputation") system, the "value" to which I'd referred was the 10-point reduction in reputation that's charged for downvotes. $\endgroup$ – Edouard May 17 at 1:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.