The Quantum Big Bang in the Weyl String and Supermembrane EpsEss

Dear Tony, Thanks for the extensive information, that made quite clear to me what you are aiming at. The struggle that scientists with a religious/spiritual background have (like myself, following my studies on hermetics, gnostics, Nag hamadi sciptures etc.) with so called sceptics is well known. I discussed this item, among others, with Robert Sheldrake. The agressive style of sceptics requires a rational approach, that is not perse defensive, certainly not using a similar style but rather should be build on strength of arguments, that is, if possible, expressed in simple language.Your answer to Huping and friend, likely, was technically probably correct but at the same time, rather counterproductive in my opinion.

Therefore I would like to advise you to remove this discussion with Huping and friend from ResearchGate and restrict yourself to your very interesting peer reviewed papers ! Donot give such people a public stage...Both of our opinions with regard to the central role of religion/spirituality in understanding the fabric of reality should be clearly expressed , yet in a carefull and strategic manner as well as using an appropriate terminology that prevents unnecessary irritation of mainstream scientists (leave out big words, science fiction terms, and even God's name, by for instance using terms like external observer/designer etc.)

I would also like to advise you to prepare an overview (list) of all of your publications/books with appropriate internet links, in the same style as done in the overview that I did send you earlier, please separate peer reviewed versus other papers, as I did. Also: use the same order of papers at your RearchGate profile, starting with the most recent papers.

Such an overview will likely show your impressive but very technical oevre. To have your work really penetrating in the field , it would be wise to prepare a review paper of all your previous work, but now in much more simple terms (see a nice example in the enclosed paper) and using minimal mathematics, as if you explain everything to a lay person with only high school education. Also I suggest to include self- explanatory figures, as I tried to do in my papers (I offer to help you in this, if necessary).

I did not understand your point of not being able to save my paper on the Information Universe, this in relation to the particular comments on this paper in your mail (the link works well in my hands!). Yet I send you a Word document now , so that you can include comments in the manuscript.

I hope that we can help each other in our future work.

Kind regards, Dirk Meijer


----- Original Message -----
From: Tony Bermanseder
To: Dick Meijer
Sent: Wednesday, September 23, 2015 10:54 PM
Subject: Re: response

Thank you Dirk for those references.
I had a look at the first one on ‘The Information Universe” and must say, that this is just the kind of essay I could fully support with whatever insights I might have gathered in the last 30 years or so. But you would have realised our common idealism and thrust in the JCER publication of Huping Hu from Quantum Mind.
He found my works on the internet in 2010-2011 and offered to publish a potpourri of various articles. Unfortunately, my exposure to his professionalism took me by surprise and my editing of my essays did not result in a more cohesive work, as I would have preferred. One other unfortunate aspect of my interaction with Hu Huping was his contrast of my work with a ‘religious fundamentalist’ (Michael Cecil) ; who had argued with me on various forums about the Nag Hammadi documents excavated in 1946-1947 in Egypt and particularly an early Christian lexicon known as the ‘Gospel of Thomas’. michael Cecil denies any validity to ‘human thought’, considering it a secondary phenomenon and prescribes to similar sentiments regarding things scientific. As a consequence my quantum science proposals regarding the physical nature of consciousness and the ‘god-creator concept’ more in the genre and philosophy of Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein and the founders of quantum mechanics (Pauli, Schrödinger, Heisenberg, Fermi and many others), became ignored for a more ‘fundamentalist’ perspective, as that displayed by Michael Cecil.
I commented on an early forum on Huping Hu’s ideas regarding his idea of connecting the standard model and the nuclear forces in some way to consciousness and it seems he got a little interested in my ideas after reading my reply to him. I commended him on his ‘Newtonian’ aptitude to show that if such a thing as ‘spirit’ or ‘religion’ exists, then it must be scientifically explorable and eventually explainable in a scientific paradigm apart from religious superstition and illogical beliefs.

I hope I am not wasting your time with this descriptor, but if we can indeed cooperate on a paper or share some common work, then I feel it is only appropriate, that you realise my background, purpose and intent of doing what I have done and do. I really don’t require your background as your emeritus acadcemic status and your words expressed in your articles and essays show clearly that our ‘model of ultimate reality’ is basically the same and shared from a metaphysical, as well as a physical perspective.
I have uploaded the critique on the Michael Cecil essay and a subsequent critique from Huping hu, who asked a fellow editor of Quantum M ind and JCER to give his opinion on an article I had posted on some forums. The critique of his friend dismissed my work as fantasy and as ‘crazy’ and despite my clarification as to the criticism, (which did not read the paper in detail to discover say the ‘change of mensuration units’ and the like; huping Hu then ceased to interact with me.
The article and critique is posted on research gate as an ‘Addendum to the Physical Consciousness...’ publication. So you can make up your own mind as to the validity of my arguments.

Some general comments, regarding your publication list might now be appropriate.
As said the the style and presentation of ‘The Information Universe’ is fully in my style and expertise. As is the one I commented upon on your research gate forum. I am not a biologis and I am no expert on the brain in a pathological manner. So some of your papers carry nomenclature unfamiliar to me and I am in no position to comment on this area of your expertise.
My expertise is of a rather general kind. It is like I understand the ‘big picture of cosmology’ in say a ‘Poor Man’s Cosmology’. What do I mean by that? I mean that I can explain the genesis and the evolution of the universe in a form akin of that of the ‘natural philosopher’ with absolutely no conflict of the standard models of science with its ontological metaphysics.
You might call me a metaphysician more so than an expert in this or that.
I finished university in 1984 and am presently an older guy without academic affiliations of any kind. However since 1984 I have followed and attuned to the scientific advancements in both Standard Particle Physics and Cosmology and doing that a number of ‘discoveries’ gave me the confidence of expecting my models to represent this ‘ultimate reality’ of the physical universe born and emergent from its metaphysical precursor.

Allow me to give you one example.
In 1996 I worked on a formula to derive the neutrino masses and came up with a difference of 0.052 electron volt. You can see and peruse this formula in my Higgs Boson with its neutrino paper on research gate.
To my utter surprise and on my birthday on June 4th, 1998, a worldwide announcement was broadcast, namely that the Kamiokande detector beneath the Japanese alps had discovered a neutrino squared mass difference calculating as 0.05 –0.06 eV.

Then around the year 2000 I read the book by Brian Greene on string theory; ‘The Elegant Universe’, which described the 5 superstring classes I have emphasized in many articles uploaded here.
Now I had modelled the genesis of the Big Bang cosmogenesis or cosmogony on five forms of say Cosmic rays, which allowed me then to rename my ‘Cosmic rays’ as those superstring classes. Therefore despite the string naysayers regarding the untestability of string theory; the experimenter observe the strings every day in their search for cosmic ray decay products from the galaxy and the extragalactic realms.

Another avenue is that of Roger penrose; whose work is also rather mainstream affiliated (even if controversial0 in regards to particular energy spectra before the Big bang. but the concept of the ekpyrotic ‘brane collissions’ he then pursues is inapproprite imo, as the great key to the classical Big bang cosmogenesis is that the inflation occurred before the creation of inertia in the forms of mass.
I have seen similar sentiments in your papers with respect to the mass obsessive precosmic models of the standard models. And this kind of information I have would fully support your endeavours, I am sure. There is no antimatter in the universe apart from pair production, because the original breaking of symmetry was not an X-AniX Bosonic bifurcation but rather a doubling of the old neutron matter (Gamow’s Ylem). The details of this relate to what is the gauge physics of advanced tensor mathematics of the group theories and related algebras descri bing M-Theory and the more technical nomenclature of quantum mechanics.

Now I must give you this caveat Dirk. I am rather unfamiliar with the academic details of presenting my information in a form, which would be acceptable to say a mainstream journal, such as ‘Science’ or ‘Nature’. And this places me in a somewhat precarious position, (not that I am looking for any credits or recognisance in any case). but I am convinced that I understand M-Theory and its basic postulates and modelitis in the physical praxis it applies to the Universe and yes, the foundation is ‘spaceinherent consciousness’ as the primordial ‘already unified’ and ‘natively supersymmetric’ cosmic glue, that holds it all together in a ‘quantum entanglement’ of say Bohm’s pilot waves and Teilhard’s Noosphere and Sheldrake’s ‘morphogenetic resonances’ and as well as Susskinds holographically entangled event horizons of Black holes related to the Hawking moduli.

For 20 years I simply wanted some phycisists who would read and understand my models to ‘run with them’ and to dress them up and present them in an academic form, which then could revolutionise the old physics into a new paradigm a la Kuhn. And I feel your sentiments are similar.
But this is getting too long and I would not like to confiscate your time; so of course I would add to any paper or work you are preparing, if you would value my input in the form I have indicated. I am not trained in advanced tensor math and as said am more of the Newtonian kind of calculus and algebra; though I am sure in the appropriate mindset and fingers, my understanding and nous regarding the original form of M-theory and the cosmogony of the cosmology of the physical universe could easily expressed in such a manner.

If you would be so kind to send me the ‘The Information Universe’ paper, then I would comment page by page with relevant input to enhance your work. I could not save it from your link.
This is the first page of an e-book I wrote in 2004 and this should moreso show you where I am coming from. Thank you dirk for your attention.



WHERE IS THE GOD OF SCIENCE ?
Or
The Death of the Supernaturality Virus !
“ A BOOK OF LIFE AND DEATH “

Introduction and Disclaimer:
This essay shall take the form of a dialogue between two philosophers and as a play of words in seven acts. A claim to have some answers to pertinent and profound questions in regards to the perennial quest of the human race to understand itself in being and in mind can be no statement of whimsicality.
Such a proposition demands a thorough investigation of the issues at hand; not a onesided or biased examination of selected data and information; but a rigorous scientific approach to evaluate all the evidence supplied in the history of the developments, both in the popular culture and its science and the philosophies supporting it.
It is of limited value to parade the scientific discipline as the rational and impartial paradigm for the future; if that same worldview proves itself incapable to elucidate or to explain the most basic of elementary questions asked or problems faced by the now globalised citizen, placing hisher hope and expectation into that same projected future. And the overwhelming problem facing mankind at the beginning of the 21st century is that of its own philosophy.

‘Where are we now as a race?’, ‘Where are we going ?’ and ‘Where did we come from?’ are some common questions asked, but not answered by the expert authorities in organised politics, science, culture and religion. Why do we seem incapable, despite having built a monumental edifice called the scientific way and methodology; and notwithstanding the progressing technology derived from that; why then can that same worldview not answer a simple question like:

“If there is such a thing as God, as so many of us have been told, then where and what is it?”

We find an evolved human genetic disposition to form allegiances and to carry and ascribe to certain beliefs, often founded or exposited upon by certain individuals or groups. Kings and knights, magicians, clerics and sages of old have transformed into the experts and advisors of the new.
Consultancy has become the catch-phrase, often stifling the natural curiousity to find answers for one’s own questions in a denial of one’s own creative impulses through an adventure of self-discovery. Today, we find allegiances to political ideologies, religious dogmas or some other culturally based agenda. All those liasons and associations have something in common however; they all become coloured in the individuals which belong to them. Redemption from this filtered state of affairs is found in a paradigm which is based on the precept of disallowing personality to individualise the work to be done or to colour the information to be collected as one’s personal archive or one’s private library of creation, subject to one’s own individual fancies and desires Albert Einstein once remarked:

“The greatest trouble in the world is the idea of a personal God!”

And so one might agree with the depersonification of Albert Einstein’s ‘God’, whom he rather affectionately called: "The Old One” and of whom he also said: “God does not play dice with the world”, referring to his rejection of the idea that life and nature’s processes are intrinsically arbitrary in an universe defined by chance and random events.

He thought of ‘God’ as being the intelligence behind the natural laws of nature, as found in the sciences and the mathematics which he studied and he believed that nature had to be based in geometrical principles, rather than in probabilities defined in statistics and stochastic matrices. And there were others before and after him; Plato and Aristotle, upon whose dialogues this treatise is based; Pythagoras, the Greek geometers and Niels Bohr, Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg, all contemporaries of Albert Einstein with Paul Dirac, Max Born and Wolfgang Pauli in their contributions to the birth of quantum mechanics.
The symmetries in nature, numbers and sequences and fundamental constants; all seem finetuned and set into relationships with one another to create the universe and all the cosmological entities within it.

And one should not forget another genius of contemporary science in Isaac Newton. But what the modern world has tried to forget and to sequester away under an umbrella of a perceived historical ignorance, was the immense interest Isaac Newton, the father of all of classical mechanics, had in the concepts of religion.
And what is the modern moral evaluation by his peers, judging a man whom they portray to the students of science as having had no equal in his time in regards to his scientific work, inventions and mathematical insights?
His power of pure intellect, like Einstein’s, is often used to exemplify the necessity for logical thought and concentration in the pursuit of scientific and mathematical excellence by the students in those fields. Is it embarrassing to tell the full story; that Isaac Newton spent months at a time trying to decipher scrolls, like the ‘Book of Daniel’ and the ‘Book of Revelation’ in the bible?

“He must have been deluded in the religious fervour of his age!”, they would have said.

But was he?
Could a mathematical prodigy like Isaac Newton have been so gullible? Isn’t it more likely, that he sensed that there was something to it – and that it had to be scientific?! Isaac Newton’s ‘God’ is the same as Albert Einstein’s ‘God’ and yet it is completely impersonal. It must be, by the definition of the working ethic!
But is it?
Could it be possible, that once the ‘God of Science’ has become totally impersonal, that then this same ‘God’ is reborn in a ‘God of OmniScience’, who allows, even demands a personification, because of its own definition?

And what if that had been the masterplan throughout the ages anyway? Can we then ever know and understand such a masterplan?
And what if all the clerical authorities around the globe are forced by their own followers to take notice? What if modern science can prove to them that their ‘Allah’ and ‘Jehovah’ and Yahwhey and ‘Brahma’ and ‘Baha’ and ‘Krishna’ and ‘Ra’ and ‘Osiris’ and ‘Set’ and ‘The Big Goat behind the Old Oaken Tree in the Walpurgisnacht on April 30th’ are all one and the same?

What if their scriptures and ancient scrolls became illumined in a new light of omniscience; should their powerbase not become depersonalised, if they are shown to have followed a very limited interpretation of their ‘sacred texts’ indeed?
Where would they go in their grandstanding of and about ‘God’s Law’ for the ‘chosen people’ and for the ‘infidels’?

It would be the end of falsified religious dogma and the death of manipulative religion as such. Because omniscience is Omni-Science, the Science of ‘The All’ for ‘The All’ and the German word for the cosmos or the universe is “Das ALL” - Albert Einstein and Max Planck and Werner Heisenberg and Wolfgang Pauli and Max Born would have liked that in their contemplations upon the natural order of things.
Albert Einstein also said: “Science without Religion is lame and Religion without Science is blind” - and this book shall try to synergise the two worldviews in a redefinition of Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and its statistical nature within a geometrical interpretation of quantum mechanics.

And then would peace between the nations have a chance, because of the demise of the old religions and the already internationally accepted profundity of the scientific way and methodology. Like music, dance or mathematics, a new language would sweep the old world of hate and dispossession, the ways of disempowerment and disbelief under the carpet of the illumination of a new base of knowledge.
A new song would be sung and the nations and tribes and families at war with each other could embrace one another in a new way of looking at the world around themselves and their individuated places within it. And all the many things they had learned from their history through the ages of humankind; all their legends, myths and fables, their religions and their sciences; all would become integrated within themselves in a renewed understanding and the death of their ignorance regarding themselves.

But to succeed, the initiation of this omniscience is first required to effect its own birthing process. The mathematical principles of necessity and sufficiency must be satisfied and the scientific global community must become informed about the new dispensation. The premises of the new model also necessitate their scientific validation through experiment and verification in the collective scientific data base.

This then is the disclaimer for this play of words.
To scientifically empower the new dispensation; a scientifically rigorous approach in its elementary application cannot be avoided. Science cannot ‘prove’ something, without clearly identifying its parameters and boundary conditions. There is an abundance of literature, which explains the present status quo in the specialised fields of particle physics, quantum theory, unification physics and cosmology in a populist genre of communication.

Many discoveries add to that edifice on a daily basis.
This treatise then does not retell the stories, which have already been told in many other ways and media. A list of references points to supportive accounts of some popular ones amongst them. This essay attempts to explain the fundamentals, the principles and preconditions for what brought about the universe’s occurrence and the parameters which led to its definition in the natural laws.
And it is happenstance, that those precepts and prerequisites existing before space and time came into being, have a relevance for the birth of the religions of history or what one could term the ‘spiritual impulse’.

The bearing upon the personality is found to be a subset of a collective psyche; what one might perceive as the groupmind of a race or species; a somewhat very unique genus, which despite the relativity of the observer and the heliocentric reality – finds itself at the centre of the universe, as itself – the race of mankind!

The story is told in a dialogue of two grandexperts in the fields of science; both exponents of the artform, but also in possession of academic qualifications in theology and comparative religion. They discuss how the story of science could be told to a largely mathematically illiterate populace. And because of their expertise in the fields of religious studies and their ancient histories; they fluctuate in their discussions between a highly scientific form of expression and the semantics of a more popular tradition, often using the similes of mythological metaphor and imagery.
That context is given as a percentage indicator at the beginning of each act.

One Robert Sceptico of Jones has a genealogical lineage tracing back to celtic blood, which culminates in the anglosaxon culture of colonised Northern America and the state of Michigan in the USA. His anglosaxon heritage is however a derivative from the most ancient bloodline of the House of Ahriman Azurguya, in the Genesis of the starhuman species in the civilisation of Mesopotamia in the year 2244 BC.
Robert Sceptico is an adherent to the divisionist school of science; progress and advancement are achieved in an organised approach to structure and the application of the scientific method in the testing and subsequent validation or falsification of proposed models and hypotheses.
Robert Sceptico’s science is one of order and compartments; things are in their place and separated by form and in substance; yet are unified in the symmetries of quantum geometry via quantum relativistic principles applied to the smallest particles found in nature in the realm of the subatomic quarks and leptons. Robert Sceptico is a renown world authority on the 12-dimensional CMF-theory of supermembranes and is a visiting professor in the physics departments of universities around the world.

One Logan Antico of Arndale has a genetic inheritance tracing back to celtic bloodlines and which culminate in the anglosaxon culture of colonised Australia and the state of Victoria. His celtic lineage derives however from the most ancient blood of the House of Adaman Azurguya, in the manifesto of the starhuman race in the civilisation of Mesopotamia in the year 2244 BC.
Logan Antico is a proponent for the unifying school of science; progress and advancements are made in an organised approach to structure and the application of the scientific methodology in the testing of hypotheses and their experimental validation or rejection. Logan Antico’s science is one of order and of symmetry; things are found separated in space and in time; yet are unified in a holographic mode of operation, based on the energetic dynamics of principles in quantum relativity and in the quantum geometry of the largest particles found in nature in the form of galaxies and their cosmological origins as white-hole-sources and as black-hole-sinks, operating as a dyadic vortex system of duality. Logan Antico is a renown world authority on cosmology and the structure of the omniverse as a collection of universes and is a visiting professor in the cosmology departments of universities around the globe.

The ultimate aim of science to unify all aspects of existence so becomes a quest to enhance all energy and matter towards their most basic and elementary form of manifestation. Once such a fundamental oneness is found and classified by science; then the scientific worldview will become enabled to crossfertilise all its interdisciplinary factions and the global culture will be ready to purge itself from all unscientific and irrationally derived paradigms and belief systems.
That will be the death of superstition and of pseudoscience; the unscientific way of thinking and its many flawed perceptions in regards to observed natural phenomena.
Both Robert Sceptico and Logan Antico hold professorships in theology and comparative religion, and both are initiates to the mythologies of ancient thought and the gnostic interpretations of the Dead-Sea-Scrolls and the documents of Nag Hammadi.
And both hold the Einstein-Chair of Quantum Relativity in the Department of OmniScience at the University of New Alexandria. Their professional status is that of Doctor of the Perennial Philosophy (PphD).

Post last edited Apr 26th 2013

From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Thursday, September 24, 2015 12:54 AM
To: Tony Bermanseder
Subject: response

Dear Tony, No thanks for the introduction, ResearchGate will be proud to have you included. I recently read some of your papers and like the general message, that is, without fully understanding the particular language and related mathematics. Nevertheless, our ideas indeed seem to have some common grounds, with my special interest in universal consciousness and the central role therein of information.

I am working now on a paper called: Consciousness is Created by Rotational Holoflux of Information at All Scales of the Universe. The concept of a gravity/dark energy-induced holographic mind , to be submitted, hopefully begin next year, to NeuroQuantology.

​

Perhaps we should collaborate on this paper in the light of our complementary expertise.
I herewith send you a list of my recent publications with appropriate links and would appreciate (short) comments on them.
Thank you for the interest and keep the good things going!
Dirk Meijer


Dear Dirk!
Thank you for your introduction to research gate. Your name appeared in my mailbox, so I presume you have something to do with this invitation I received to this information sharing group. I am still familiarizing myself with this website and have added to some rather old publications, which were already here uploaded by someone unknown, perhaps yourself or some affiliate. I also looked at your paper: Quantum Physics in Consciousness Studies. The Quantum Mind Extended and read the many parallels with my own work. So perhaps we are on the same scientific denominator with respect to this universal agenda. Going by this presumption, allow me to send you here the link to a concise addendum to the paper on consciousness, which you have read.
thank again for the introduction, TonyB

Dear Dirk!
Thank you for your reply. I will address your model’s parameters using the Casimir entry from wikipedia following this poetic introduction.

Dirk, the Dolphin of Hollanda

Dirk was a dolphin of ancient Gaian times and who lived in the Terran Sea
With great curiosity he swam about Hollanda wishing many things to see.
More than many of his fellow cetaceans, who often were content with their lot;
Dirk knew there was more to his being but a dolphin just stirring the pot.

Not bound like a fish in the Gaian sea, Dirk could jump out of the murky water.
And so he saw another world, more expansive, the mother’s lovely daughter.
Then Dirk imagined two worlds, one above and one below the surface of his existence
Could he then realize his dreamtime engaging purposefully in a great persistence?

Times passed with Dirk getting older with his wisdom growing stronger.
Albeit his understanding ever more cosmic, could not be hosted in form any longer.
One by one, the dolphin’s galactic cells telomerased in quantum depletion;
Dirk’s microtubules reminiscing, remembering his many endeavours towards completion.

One day Dirk saw his own mirror image, his morpheous shadow doubled;
Selfentangled he became in his perceptions, when his spacetime bubbled;
In two places at once he saw himself as a quantum form of transmutation.
But his body now as a wave could no longer be in individuated separation.

Dirk then truly knew what he had always been and sought to rediscover;
but now in fuller selfawareness, he needed a new body as a universal lover.
I must remember myself as Dirk from the old particular world encompassed;
then I shall be able to experience all that I am much better than I did in my past.



​

It is generally envisaged by the researchers and philosophers contemplating, analysing and studying the physical universe, that a bottom-up approach of applying an ever improving technology and focus on detail will eventually allow them to explain and describe the history and genesis of creation and the evolution of all things observed, measured and examined.
With so much effort invested in the particular individuated consciousness to comprehend and/or understand the universal consciousness; why then does the bottom-up approach not result in a paradigm changing global civilization, which is selfaware and self enabled to utilize its collective potential for advancement to end social injustices, the destruction of the ecosphere and the ‘warring’ belief systems both cultural and in common interactions?
Is it because only a top-down approach to the ultimate questions, addressing purpose of existence and history, both individuated and as a planetary ‘groupmind’ or murmuration memeplex can possibly become an ‘escaped prisoner’ from Plato’s Cave of Shadows?
My little poem to you then seeks to describe the ‘cave dweller’ of the bottom-up approach to answer the questions posed by the creator above to itself as a creator below and as a ‘Job of every cave dweller’ and fish in the water or flatlander who seeks to become aware of a ‘greater reality’.
And whilst I cannot escape my tangencies too well, I do hope, that my comments below are self consistent enough for you to consider in a somewhat focused manner of contemplation.

The Casimir effect displays a force of the ‘vacuum’ and in particular it is said to manifest at the nanoscale of technology and relates to Hawaking radiation as a ‘dynamical Casimir effect’.
There are a number of things to consider. First of all you might like to read my comments (In blue) in this wikipedia excerpt: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect .
I also address your obvious sympathy to the 5-dimensional ADS-CFT conjecture of Maldacena and co.

Dynamical Casimir effect

The dynamical Casimir effect is the production of particles and energy from an accelerated moving mirror. This reaction was predicted by certain numerical solutions to quantum mechanics equations made in the 1970s.^[33] In May 2011 an announcement was made by researchers at the Chalmers University of Technology, in Gothenburg, Sweden, of the detection of the dynamical Casimir effect. In their experiment, microwave photons were generated out of the vacuum in a superconducting microwave resonator. These researchers used a modified SQUID to change the effective length of the resonator in time, mimicking a mirror moving at the required relativistic velocity. If confirmed this would be the first experimental verification of the dynamical Casimir effect.^{[34] [35]}
Analogies

A similar analysis can be used to explain Hawking radiation that causes the slow "evaporation" of black holes (although this is generally visualized as the escape of one particle from a virtual particle-antiparticle pair, the other particle having been captured by the black hole).[citation needed]
Constructed within the framework of quantum field theory in curved spacetime, the dynamical Casimir effect has been used to better understand acceleration radiation such as the Unruh effect.[citation needed]

This is important as the virtual particle pair in Hawking radiation model strikes at the nature of what those ‘virtual particle pairs of the quantum oscillations’ might be. Then the creation of the microwave photons (Chalmers) using superconductivity indicates a different mechanism, than that invoked by Hawking. One could infer from this, that the nature of the ‘virtual particle production/annihilation’ is more engaged, than proposed as a fluctuation of the Heisenberg gauge background. Hawking’s Black-Hole ‘swallowed’ virtual-particle to create a negative mass effect for the Black Hole and transforming the Hawking radiated ex virtual particle as Black Hole thermodynamics so becomes physically correct, but fails to properly address the matter-antimatter asymmetry. Because if the antimatter virtual particle partner becomes Hawking radiation, then this photon must have become transformed from the mass of the antiparticle interacting with the mass of the particle in a hitherto undefined way. The microwave photons from Chalmers obviously relate to the same physics, but now one must explain what happened to the antiparticles in the dynamical Casimir system as well. Were they absorbed by the apparatus and if so what is the theory explaining this in qualitative terms?

As stated, what occurs, is that the so called ‘virtual particles’ are not virtual, but differ from their generating (decay) products in that they have ‘lost’ their colour/magneto charges. It is the exchange of magnetocharges, which physicalises the ‘virtual particles’ from their ‘higher dimensional’ ‘gauge physics’ in any form of physicality and it is this quantum mechanics of ‘exchange’ which manifests the physical reality from its metaphysical background of a quantized spacetime itself.

The process of Pair Annihilation is ubiquitous and can happenstance whenever matter meets antimatter, but Pair Production requires the presence of a nucleus say to occur – Why?

Because the production of antimatter requires the presence of a ‘guiding unified field’. This is Bohm’s idea of pilot waves and also the phenomenon of murmuration say when individual birds move in unison in a shared ‘group mind’ or ‘hive’ consciousness, as in for example Sheldrake’s morphogenetic resonance biophysics.

In quantum terms then, the presence of a nucleus is required for Pair Annihilation because the emission of a colourcharged Graviton coupled to a colour charged ‘virtual photon of the electromagnetic interaction’ allows the incoming ‘neutral’ photon of sufficient mass energy to ‘exchange’ the colour charges between the gauge and ungauged photon energy state and an exchange which is always required to manifest any matter state, all matter being defined in the ‘top-down’ cosmogony as being the effect of a gauge colour mixing between the electromagnetic goldstone gauge and its antistate. This antistate then allowed a complete suppression for the antistate of matter in antimatter, except in the process of Pair Production. The massless Goldstone boson say descriptive for the antiphotonic selfstate so became made manifest in the Higgs boson models first as a massless ‘Axion’ (Peccei-Quinn theory of the strong CP-violation, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axion) whom I renamed as RestMassPhoton or RMP as the ‘Particle of Consciousness’ as an intrinsic part of that ‘unified gauge field’.

This ‘axion’ as a ‘dark matter’ particle is required to spin neutralise all of the gauge interactions in coupling as a ‘generic precursor’ for all inertial particles in its properties of the colour charges. The RMP has the same colour triplet as has matter, but is anticolour to the graviton and the ‘virtual photon’ and also the gluon in triplet form. In doublet form the gluons become coupled to the quark-antiquark mesonic state however and in most elementary terms it is the transmutation between the triplet and the doublet states of the quantum mechanics, which IS this ZPE or vaccum energy you are trying to use to explain consciousness in terms of physics.

In any case closely considering the details in my uploaded papers, would show anyone interested in the subject matter and with a simple college physics background, how it all fits together top-down and not bottom-up.

There is a basically impenetrable barrier to unify physical science from the bottom-up approach and it is this I have tried to poetize for you in the introduction. Only in the wave state of the duality can the overall cosmology become comprehended by the particular individuated perception. Schrödinger’s Cat is collapsed as a wavefunction in the particular state of being ‘alive dead’ and is simultaneously collapsed as a particular function in the wavestate of being ‘dead alive’. This is your intuitive nous about the ‘revealed double’.

Forgive my tangency but the following ‘saying’ from the Nag Hammadi lexicon is a description of advanced quantum mechanics ‘top-down’ stated 2000 years ago and not some new agey nonsensical idea of Buddhistic nirvanistic ‘transcendental’ navel gazing and selfcontemplation.

(77) Jesus said, "It is I who am the light which is above them all. It is I who am the all. From me did the all come forth, and unto me did the all extend. Split a piece of wood, and I am there. Lift up the stone, and you will find me there." (Gospel of Thomas; Lambdin)

Now, even if only a peripheral attention is paid to statements, such as this, then any validity to such seemingly megalomaniacal or ‘mentally insane’ words would describe some ‘greater reality’ more attuned to an alien superintelligence, than to the experienced and common world of the planetary human inhabitor and data collector. On the other hand, would a physicalisation of a science fictional “beam me up Scotty” not relate to a scientific feasible and plausible explanation for the ‘Shroud of Turin’, should the latter describe a resonance hyperphysics of advanced quantum mechanics, where the molecular and atomic constituency of a hologram pattern can invert the positive image as a negative blueprint in a resonance physics which has access to the ‘gauge physics’ of the cosmogenesis? Would this not also imply, that the often error prone biochemical manifested genomatrix of genetic transcription has its origin in a ‘nucleotidal base perfect’ genomatrix preceding the possibility of the error transcriptions? What if the baseperfect information genome can be accessed in a ‘higher dimensional’ sense, meaning that hyperspace can be defined as a colocal extra space multiplying the ‘lower dimensional’ spacetime? Would it then not be possible in a ‘Holographic Universe’, that the fractalisation of the whole in the shard goes both ways and that the ‘total resonance’ would enable the shard of the self similarity to share in the holographic intensity of its own encompassment? Would the shard then not become omnipresent as the part of the oneness becoming the oneness in a reduced inhtensity whenh in individuated particularisation?
John 1.1-5 - King James Version (KJV)

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
{Translated: In the Beginning was the Logos/Definition and the definition was with the chaotic source energy of unconsciousness and the definition made the chaos conscious as the Energy of all that was and is and will exist.}
2 The same was in the beginning with God.
3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
There is a algorithmic source energy which manifested this ‘selfconsciousness’ in a mathematical way, not requiring a material universum. It took the form of a quantum series of propagating ‘awareness triplet’ of the coded form: {Old State; Experience; New State due to Experience}.

Dynamical Casimir effect and the Big Bang

From a Scalar field model of the Big Bang the Geometric phase is used in a paper by O'Brien "Dynamical Casimir effect and the Big Bang"[36] to relate the Hartle-Hawking State, Guth's and Linde's Inflationary Model and Baryon asymmetry into a single model.
Using the premise of the Feynman–Stueckelberg interpretation that antiparticles travel backwards in time to reflect off the infinite potential boundary of the Scalar field. The Scalar field undergoes a Dynamical Casimir effect during an adiabatic transition, this adiabatic transition is cyclic and satisfies the requirement of a cyclic adiabatic process - where the revolution in the paper's title refers to this cycle. This provides a mechanism for matter-antimatter asymmetry and the formation of real on-mass matter, and all takes place as the universe inflates (Guth & Linde mechanism) from Euclidean geometry to a Minkowski spacetime satisfying the Hartle-Hawking State.
Perhaps my insistence, that the ‘bottom up’ approach to solve the ‘consciousness as physicality’ cannot succeed, without first accomodating the ‘top down’ approach is best exemplified by how the Casimir effect relates to the cosmology and overall evolution of the universe. You see here, that it is inflation which allows the flat Minkowski spacetime to curve into the higher dimensional spacetimes and especially the Anti deSitter 5D ‘open hyperbolic geometry’ with its de Sitter ‘closed topolgy’ counterpart. The Maldacena papers are discussed here: “The Illusion of Gravity –2005-SciAm” in the post: “The Black Hole at the Birth of the Universe” and following “The Holographic Universe as Information Processor and the Creation of discretized SpaceTime” and “The Einstein Stress-Tensor as Physical Spacial Consciousness Metric”
--- http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/index.php?threads/the-holographic-universe-as-information-processor.877/#post-4264
Especially I try to show, that the ‘holographic brane universe’ indeed answers Maldacena’s great question regarding the Boundary of the AdS-CFT conjecture.

My uploaded material on the de Broglie Inflaton I am writing about solves the Maldacena problem highlighted above.
This hypersphere has the fixed hologramic Hubble Horizon from the de Broglie Inflaton.
It IS a MASSLESS Mother-Black Hole in the AdS-CFT Kaluza-Klein space and it HAS the negative curvature due to the 'missing mass' as described as the 0.01405 deceleration parameter, which is the ACCELERATION gradient (of the false vacuum) between the Einstein Lambda and the de Broglie hyperacceleration and so also the density ratio.

There are few instances wherein the Casimir effect can give rise to repulsive forces between uncharged objects. Evgeny Lifshitz showed (theoretically) that in certain circumstances (most commonly involving liquids), repulsive forces can arise.[37] This has sparked interest in applications of the Casimir effect toward the development of levitating devices. An experimental demonstration of the Casimir-based repulsion predicted by Lifshitz was recently carried out by Munday et al.[38] Other scientists have also suggested the use of gain media to achieve a similar levitation effect,[39] though this is controversial because these materials seem to violate fundamental causality constraints and the requirement of thermodynamic equilibrium (Kramers-Kronig relations). Casimir and Casimir-Polder repulsion can in fact occur for sufficiently anisotropic electrical bodies; for a review of the issues involved with repulsion see Milton et al.[40]

This again should be discussed from the cosmological perspective first, as those technical experimental apparatus regarding say electric and magnetic fields relate like gravitation to dynamical systems, which in the cosmic sense form holofractal subsets in selfrelative reference frames. Perhaps you disagree, when I say, that there are no comoving coordinate systems for the expanding universe spacetime metrics and that say the relativistic doppler equation suffices in calculating the cosmological redshift values. It was the inflation which created the De Sitter Kaluza-Klein topological ‘envelope of spherical boundary closure’ for the Anti De Sitter ‘open and overall flat universe expansion’. If this then is the case, the so called ‘stretching of space’ becomes nicely quantized in the form of the original wormhole parameters and the greatest ‘Hubble oscillations’ simply BOTH refract and reflect the nodal hubble frequencies as detailed in some uploads.



Applications

It has been suggested that the Casimir forces have application in nanotechnology,[41] in particular silicon integrated circuit technology based micro- and nanoelectromechanical systems, silicon array propulsion for space drives, and so-called Casimir oscillators.[42]
The Casimir effect shows that quantum field theory allows the energy density in certain regions of space to be negative relative to the ordinary vacuum energy, and it has been shown theoretically that quantum field theory allows states where the energy can be arbitrarily negative at a given point,[43] Many physicists such as Stephen Hawking,[44] Kip Thorne,[45] and others[46][47][48] therefore argue that such effects might make it possible to stabilize a traversable wormhole. Similar suggestions have been made for the Alcubierre Drive, although this is generally considered pseudoscience.
On 4 June 2013 it was reported[49] that a conglomerate of scientists from Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Florida, Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory have for the first time demonstrated a compact integrated silicon chip that can measure the Casimir force.[50]


I have written an article on the application of nanotechnology in 2001 and uploaded it to here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282275051_QUAGECOMS_101_and_the_Universal_Information_Pathway_(UIP)
QUAGECOMS 101 - A Revolution in the application of Nanotechnology to the Silicon Microchip and the Computation Industry An open invitation to all in the information and data processing industries. (PACIFICA OMNISCIENCE; November 4th, 2001) QUAGECOMS are Quantum-Geometric Computer Chips of Superconductivity.
Logo: QuaGeComs for my Data are Pater for my Mater!
If you have time to look at this, you will see a proposal of how the various distance scales in the universe are related by the ‘top-down’ approach to ‘solve’ the riddle of wat physical consciousness is. It also describes more of my previously mentioned bifurcation of the DNA/RNA templates of the biophysics. The Casimir effect so has something to do with the 25 nanometer scale of ribosomes.

Thanks for your communication and feedback Dirk;
TonyB.

http://www.cosmosdawn.net/forum/index.php?threads/quagecoms-101-and-the-universal-information-pathway-aka-uip.1399/

​

From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2015 3:01 AM
To: Tony Bermanseder
Subject: Re: The Relationship between General Relativity, Dark Energy and Physical Consciousness

Dear Tony, I understand your position and admire your pioneering work. With regard to consciousness: I see it as the integraton and amplification of active information( the kind of information that leads to action and vice versa), and thus concieve it as a fundamental part of all (living) nature. Our brain is conceptualized as an interface between universal and individual consciousnees (two-way interaction). Production and integation of information occurs by entropic processes as influenced by gravity and anti-gravity (dark energy). The latter is divergent and rather derived from ZPE (gravitational dipoles and/or casimir effect in 5D- compacted space). Local gravity (convergent) is induced by displacement of matter/information). The brain is instrumental in further disposition and dissipation of information in the brain but also to the external world (our double revealed !).

You may comment and shortly suggest the physical expression of all this, that is, in simple but consistent terms.

Thank you in advance,

Dirk

 

Dear Dirk!

Danke schön for your reply!

Your first attachment about Quantum Dark Energy I can fully support. Please see following my critique on a similar earlier paper by Z.K. Silagadze from Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics in Russia. You will see that the conclusions in your sent paper converge with this one in regards to the 5th dimension for gravitation in a compactification radius. I also like the boundary conditions for this extra dimension inferred from the excerpt below. The point you might consider however, is that this boundary condition refers to the boundary of the 10th spacial string dimension as well as the 5th Kaluza Klein dimension of the Anti De Sitter spacetime. It is just this Strominger has tried to associate with the de Sitter closure spacetime to somehow solve the Hubble Horizon problem in the Maldacena cosmology, I referenced you in the last correspondence.

I will comment on the other paper below the Silagadze critique.


Quantum Gravity and the Higher Dimensions
Reference: Z.K.Silagadze's paper at: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0002255 Budker Institute of Nuclear Physics, 630 090, Novosibirsk, Russia

"TeV scale gravity, mirror universe, and ... dinosaurs"

(I have corrected some of the English and elaborated on the equations (I do not like the geometrization of units for example. The main formulas are from the Silagadze paper referenced however and are common knowledge in the scientific data base. Tony B.). The hierarchy mystery
The energy scale where gravity becomes strong and quantum gravity effects are essential is given by the Planck mass. This mass can be estimated as follows. Suppose two particles of equal masses m are separated at a distance which equals to the corresponding Compton radius: R_compton=h/2πmc.
If the gravitational interaction energy of the system mc²=Gm²/R_c= 2πGm³c/h is of the same order as the particle rest mass m, then the former can not be neglected. This gives for the Plank mass: m=M_P=√(hc/2πG)~10¹⁹ GeV and as the energy scale for quantum gravity. The energy scale for electroweak unification (EEW) is the Fermi scale of about 300 GeV and the GUT-Monopole scale (EGUT of Grand Unified Theories) is at 2.7x10¹⁶ GeV for inclusion of the strong nuclear interaction.
This huge difference between this quantum gravity energy scale and the electroweak scale is astonishing and constitutes the so called hierarchy problem. There is also a gauge hierarchy problem: the Grand Unification scale EGUT is very big compared to EEW.
Any successful theory should not only explain these hierarchies, but also provide some mechanism to protect them against radiative corrections. Recently an interesting idea was suggested by Arkani-Hamed, Dimopoulos and Dvali [38] how to deal with the hierarchy problem. Certainly, there will be no problem, if there is no hierarchy. But how can we lower the quantum gravity scale so that the hierarchy disappears? It turns out that this is possible if extra spatial dimensions exist with big enough compactification radius.
Suppose besides the usual x,y,z coordinates there exist some additional spatial coordinates x₁,x₂,...,x_n, which are compactified on circles with a common (for simplicity) compactification radius R. In such a world with toroidal compactification, the gravitational potential, created by an object of mass m, should be periodic in the extra n-dimensions. That is, it should be invariant under replacements (x_i → x_i ±2πR).
Besides it should vanish at spatial infinity and obey the (n+3)-dimensional Laplace equation. These requirements are satisfied by the following function [39]:
V= -ΣG*m/[r²+Σ(x_i-2πR_n)²]^½(n+1)
Here summation is for n from 1 to n and where G* is Newton's gravitational constant for (n+4) space-time dimensions and with r²= x²+ y²+ z² as the usual three-dimensional radial distance. If the compactification radius R is very large, only the term with n1 = 0,...,n_n= 0 survives in the sum and we get the Newton law in n 4 dimensions:
V~ -G*m/r*⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾ and where r*=√{r²+Σx_i²}..............{Equation #4}
This reduces to the 4D spacetime form for n=0, i.e. no additional spacial dimensions for the gravitational potential with G*=G and r*=r:
V=∫(Gm/x²)dx= -Gm/r for the integration from x=0 to x=r.
But if R « r, the sum can be approximated by an integral:
V~ -G*m/(2πR)ⁿ∫dnx/[r²+x²]^½(n+1) ~ -G*m/r.Rⁿ= -Gm/r.
Therefore for the conventional 4-dimensional Newton constant we have G=G*/Rⁿ.
On the other hand, the fundamental multidimensional quantum gravity scale M_P* is now determined from (#4) and for a compactification radius R=R₀, which transforms the Planck-Length L_P=R_P=h/2πcM_P into r*=R₀.
M_P corresponds to L_P=R_P=h/2πcM_P for r*=r=L_P and M_P* corresponds to r*=R₀=h/2πcM_P* for r*=√{r²+Σx_i²} and with r*⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾~r.Rⁿ for low scale quantum gravity.
The potential V is given by the equation (#4), and we have the gravitational interaction energy (with mc²=M_P.Gm/r in 4D spacetime):
M_P*.V(1/M_P*)=M_P*.V(R₀)=M_P*.(G*m/r*⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾)=M_P*.(G*m/R₀⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾)
Therefore mc²= M_P*.G*m{2πcM_P*/h}⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾ or M_P*=(c²/G*).(h/2πcM_P*)}⁽ⁿ⁺¹⁾.
So M_P*⁽ⁿ⁺²⁾=(1/G*)(h/2πc)ⁿ.(hc²/2πc)={hc/2πG*}(h/2πc)ⁿ.
Also, G=G*/Rⁿ = hc/2πM_P² for M_P*⁽ⁿ⁺²⁾=M_P²/Rⁿ(h/2πc)ⁿ.
This is {M_P/M_P*}²={R/R₀}ⁿ as M_P*=h/2πcR₀.
Ergo M_P/M*_P~√(R/R₀)ⁿ ...................................{Equation #5}
Here R₀ = 1/M_P* and R₀ ~ 10^-19 m (m – one meter), if the fundamental quantum gravity scale M*_P is in a few TeV range. Therefore the initial M_P/EEW hierarchy problem can be traded to another hierarchy: the largeness of the compactification radius compared to R₀. Namely, we get from (5) the corresponding compactification radius as:
R=(1.6x10^-8/1.6x10^-24) ^(2/n).{R₀}~10^(32/n)-19 m.
For one extra dimension this means modification of the Newton’s gravity at scales R = 10¹³ m and is certainly excluded. But already for n = 2, R ~ 1 mm – just the scale where our present day experimental knowledge about gravity ends. ...


Tony B. commentary:

The above is the appropriate multidimensional treatment of quantum gravity.
The missing ingredient is simply the assumption of the Compactification radius to be R₀=10^-19 m, which gives the mm scale.
The correct compactification radius is R₀=10^-22/2π metres for a characteristic:
M_P*=m_ps=E_ps/c²=hf_ps/c²=h/l_psc=2.22x10^-20 kg or 1.24x10⁴ TeV = 1.24x10⁷ GeV.
R=(M_P/m_ps)^(2/n).R_ps=(λ_ps/2π).{c³λ_ps²/2πGh} ^(1/n).

This approximates as ~(1.6x10^-23).(5.8x10²³) ^(1/n).
For n=1; R₁=9.23... m and macroscopic as the result above.
For n=2; R₂=1.21..x10^-11 m and the typical atomic scale.
For n=3; R₃=1.33...x10^-15 m and the typical nuclear/subatomic (fermi) scale.
For n=4; R₄=1.39...x10^-17 m and the typical mesonic scale.
For n=5; R₅=9.05...x10^-19 m and the typical outer neutrino-kernel scale.
For n=6; R₆=1.46...x10^-19 m and the typical mean neutrino-kernel scale.
For n=7; R₇=3.97...x10^-20 m and the typical inner neutrino-kernel scale. For n=8; R₈=1.49...x10^-20 m and the typical gauge/graviton-kernel scale.

8 extra spacial dimensions so define the heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8) of octonion normed lie algebra of exceptional class E8 in 12D-F-Space.
The bosonic superstring resides in 26 dimensions for which n=22 for R₂₂=1.92...x10^-22 m and additional dimensions approach the wormhole limit of the Weyl geodesic as the Big Bang quantum gravitational 'singularity'.
The limit for n→∞ so is R_ps=λ_ps/2π=10^-22/2π=1.591549..x10^-23 metres and as the wormhole radius which is the scale of the Kerr-Torus of cross-sectional area of L_P². The supermembrane E_psE_ss has eigenenergy R₀=R_ps and the transformed and magnified Planck-Mass m_ps=hf_ps/c²=h/cλ_ps.
It is this eigenstate, which applies for the physical universe observed and measured in the pursuits of historical science.
Tony B.





I can only support your allegiance to the gravitational dipoles in a few ways as proposed Dirk, as this approach correctly identifies the problems regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the Cosmological constant, but deviates too much from the well tested cosmological standard models.
The universe can indeed be modeled in cyclicity, but this in no way changes matter to antimatter etc in its oscillation, but rather allows the original inflation cosmology (which this paper seeks to eliminate) to evolve in the lower dimensional sense from its higher dimensional precursor and origin.
In fact it are the ‘boundary conditions’ from the earlier paper which ‘oscillate between say maximising and minimising the ‘Hubble frequency’.
The gravitational dipole in this paper is said to complement the electric dipole say in the ZPE Heisenberg background and the physical principles are well explained and inferred in the quantum theoretical sense. It is my opinion however, that the gravitational dipole ‘charge’ can easily be substituted by the magnetopole ‘charge’ so conforming to the primordial Big Bang cosmology of the Grand-Unification-Theories (GUT Monopole as ec/l Cosmic String Electricity say).

The following picture exemplifies my critique. It correctly points to the Milgröm intrinsic acceleration as rather successfully questioning the dark matter models and also correctly stipulates the failure of MOND to then modifying Newtonian gravity in its basic postulates at the galactic-cosmic displacement scales.
But a ‘transition point’ between saturated and non-saturated polarization in weaker fields becomes an unnecessary addendum and complication, if this same Milgröm acceleration is accepted as that part of the Dark Energy at the birth of the universe when the ‘Physical Lambda as Consciousness’ was suppressed in a magnitude of 94 in the baryonic matter content of the universe.




From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Wednesday, September 30, 2015 7:58 PM
To: Tony Bermanseder
Subject: Re: Casimir Effect and ZPE

Dear Tony, I was touched and flattered by your poetry. Dolphins are special, relatively big brains, cheerfull, free, having their own language that no other species understands!

I come back to my hypothesis on virtual gravitational dipoles. I send you an instructive PPT presentation for two reasons: it introduces the subject nicely...

and it may be an adequate format to present your own work in simple text, pictures and schemes (my strong suggestion). Please give me your opinion on both aspects.

Also I send you a paper on dark matter arising from casimir effects, please comment shortly.

Thank you for texts and references.

Kind regards, Dirk

 

One can omit this mass-evolution for the HDU and consider the product G_oM_o constant over linear time.
Then the Dark Energy equation simplifies and is:

Dark Energy Λ(n) = G_oM_o/R(n)² - 2cH_o/(n+1)³

{Dirk, please note here the condition for L to be zero as:
G_oM_o/R(n)² = 2cH_o/(n+1) for M_o/2M_∞ = L_o/a_deBroglie and H_o = c/R_Hubble becoming 2G_oM_∞/c² = {a_deBroglie/L_o}.{2R_Hubble}.{n²/(n+1)⁵} = 4R_Hubble.{R_{Hubble for M∞}/R_{Sarkar for Mo}}.{0.00701} for n=3.40055.. that is a cycletime for the universe of about 57.55 billion years when the lambda attains its second zero value.​

The lower dimensional Hubble Radius so becomes proportional to four times of this as a higher dimensional Hubble Radius.

Now compare this to the orthogonally defined density as the pressure directed into the 5th dimension in your reference paper. (In the red boxes).



When the universe was born, its geometry and topology was that of a 3 dimensional surface, that is a Riemannian hypersphere of curvature radius 2G_oM_∞/c².
After a particular evolution in time, the baryonic matter seedling defining GoMo/l_Weyl² at the creation as the initializing boundary lambda L_o say must be identical to the M_∞ curvature radius.
Then rewriting the lambda equation will give you the ratio of the de Broglie inflaton hyperacceleration a_deBroglie=Weyl wormhole frequency squared times the Hubble Event Horizon (R_Hubble=c/Hubble constant H_o) to the boundary Einstein lambda multiplied by 2R_Hubble times the cycletime factor n²/(n+1)⁵ and so the asymptotic values AS the Cosmological Constant for constant G_oM_o will calculate as n=3.4 as the second zero for the lambda aka the dark energy. So at the 57.46 billion year marker the original 10D universal baryon matter seed becomes identical to its 11D 'mass evolved' matter seed for a 0 lambda and after an infinite evolution the lambda asymptotically becomes the cosmological constant as a positive value and as a fraction (~0.7%) of 2cH_o~1.12 nanometers per second squared as the intrinsic cosmic deceleration constant (used by MOND).

But including a 'matter evolution' factor would become associated with the lambda asymptotically approaching 0 from a negative inflexion and an additional lambda zero for a positive epoch of so 3 halfcycles (say n=12.3-9.3=3).
This relates to a 'rebanging' or recharging of the Big bang cosmology preventing any 'heat entropy death' for the universe easily calculated in the modular evolution of the wormhole radius of the Big Bang to the Black Hole Hubble Horizon and shows that Strominger's 'extremal massless Black Hole' takes just under 4 trillion years to oscillate between those two values. 4,000 billion years after the Big bang so resets the VPE-ZPE-Dark Energy initialization in a renewed inflaton then using the newly created 11-dimensional Hubble Horizon from the 'Mother Black hole' as the new inflation parameter.



The derivative Λ'(n) = -2G_oM_o R'(n)/R(n)³ + 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ = 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ - 2G_oM_o H_o²(n+1)/c²n³
Then the absolute minimum for Λ'(n)=0 and for n=0.2389... becomes:
Λ(0.2389) =2.12319...x10^-10 - 5.92482...x10^-10 = -3.80163...x10^-10 (m/s²)*.

The roots for Λ(n)=0 are calculated via 2c³/G_oM_oH_o=(n+1)⁵/n² as n₁=0.10823... and n₂=3.40055...
This corresponds then to the Dark Energy beginning at the very high positive value of 2x10⁸⁵ (m/s²)* at the instanton and reaching its first zero for the galaxy formation in the HDU after 1.83 billion years.
This process of galaxy formation then peaks at the minimum so 4.04 billion years after the Big Bang and in tandem with the galaxy evolution in the LDU and peaking (0.2389..-0.2352..=0.0037) or so 62.5 million years earlier.

The Dark Matter epoch begins 1.83 billion years after the instanton-inflaton and ends so 3.4 cycles afterwards at a 'oscillation coordinate' of 3.4R_Hubble or about 57.5 billion years.

For the present time then, the HDU-LDU cosmo-evolutionary coupling has; and due to the lightspeed expansion of the HDU compared to the inertia slowing of the LDU; diverged in the factor D(n)=√Xⁿ and which calculates as D(n_present=1.1324..)=0.7615...
This divergence increases over linear time with the oscillatory HDU encompassing the asymptotic LDU.

The Dark Energy, as a 'bookkeeper', so 'fades out' by the D(n) factor over linear time in the LDU with the MILGROM diminishing slower than the OMEGA.

This 'account-keeping' of the 'Dark Energy' 'solves' Edward Witten's 'dilemma' and 'his most troublesome professional observation'.

Iow, Einstein was right after all of having made a blunder, which wasn't a blunder.
The Cosmological can be defined as in this paper, but OVERALL it is ZERO, just as Ed Witten wishes for in M-Theory.
An interview with him, stating this is reproduced below from the 'stringsite website'
http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html​

 

​

 

The Evolution of the Universe in the Oscillation of its Curvature Radius and its Accelerations​

Abstract:
The overall evolution of the universe is shown to be a function of initial and boundary conditions, commonly described in a Big Bang singularity event, which can be modeled on an emergence of the classical relativistic thermodynamic expansion of the cosmology from a prior quantum gravitational background: n_Weyl = l_Weyl/R_Hubble for a parametrized scalefactor R(n)=R_Hubble{n/[n+1]} and R(n_Weyl)= l_Weyl/{1+n_Weyl} = wormhole lambda l_Weyl in the limit of the inflaton.
Quantum gravity then expressed in terms of an intrinsic multidimensional maximum curvature, here termed the wormhole Weyl curvature radius of heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8) is shown to become a minimum boundary condition initiating the Quantum Big Bang following a stringed brane epoch of inflation, which corrolarily defined the boundary-initial condition for the Hubble Event Horizon as the modular or quantum entangled maximum.

The expansion of the universe in post-braned time evolution from the Weyl quantum gravitational curvature so evolves in hyperbolic space towards its Hubble curvature radius (in 10D - 5D anti de Sitter spacetime), but is mirror modulated in the evolution of the Hubble boundary maximum (in 11D Witten - 5D de Sitter spacetime) in a closed spherical spacetime topology.
The negatively curved universe asymptotically approaches the de Sitter Event Horizon in a curvature radius finestructured in the Einstein-Riemann tensor maximized in an intrinsic 'Big Bang' acceleration of 2cH_o=1.1268x10^-9 m/s² and where H_o describes a 'nodal' Hubble frequency as the inflaton Hubble event horizon as the de Sitter boundary in the Schwarzschild Curvature for the universe defined in a 'dark energy' closure mass M_∞. At any time t=n/H_o within a greater cycle count n<234.47 the original wormhole radius of maximum curvature 'flattens' asymptotically towards its modular mirror R_Hubble=2G_oM_∞/c² and attaining a value of 0.9957.. at the critical coordinate, when the next inflation epoch eventuates to reset the initial parameters in a new de Sitter Hubble event horizon and therefore a new 'closure mass M_∞.

The positively curved universe approaches the critical coordinate from the minimum curvature initialized by the first inflaton defined in a de Broglie matter wave acceleration of a_deBroglie = R_Hubble.f_Weyl²=1.438x10⁸⁷ m/s² for a timeperiod of about 3.96 Trillion 'civil years'.

The matter wave inflation or hyperacceleration becomes proportional to a baryonic mass seedling M_o to then initialize the Quantum Big Bang in classical relativity in the form of the Einstein Lambda so defining the 'dark energy' not as an antigravitational cosmic force, but as the 'missing acceleration' to correlate and balance the two curvatures of the cosmological boundaries.

As the absolute minimum of the Einstein Lambda, which changes from positive to 0 to negative to 0 to an asymptotic value of G_oM_o/{R_Hubble(n/[n+1])}² = 7.964x10^-12 m/s² at the critical coordinate is attained for L(n=0.2389) = -3.8016x10^-10 m/s² (at a cosmological redshift of z=1.177 for a 'peak of galaxy formation'); the universe 'appears' to accelerate in the change of the gradient of the Einstein Lambda from negative to positive, but within a positive gravitational Omega of G_oM_o/{R_Hubble(n/[n+1)}²= 2.1232x10^-10 m/s² and an intrinsic (Milgröm) deceleration of -2cH_o/(1.2389)³ =-3.8016x10^-10 m/s² calculated as: -3.8016x10^-10 m/s² = 2.1232x10^-10 m/s² - 5.9248x10^-10 m/s².

The overall cosmology so becomes Euclidean flat as a n-cyclic universe of 16.9 billion year halfcycles, the overall inflaton cyclicity requiring 234.47 cycles to reset the initial parameters to reinitialize the next Quantum Big Bang singularity event.
This 'recharging' or rebirth of the universe then reinitializes the following cosmological boundary values:

R_Hubble(1st Inflaton)=l_WeylH^1/3/2p = 1.59767545x10²⁶ m and with H a space quantization constant for the number of wormhole quanta in the inflaton volumar dV₄/dR=2p²R_Hubble³
M_∞(1st Inflaton)=R_Hubble.c²/2G_o =6.47058558x10⁵² kg

L_{1st Big Bang}/a_deBroglie= G_oM_o/l_Weyl² = 2.015x10⁸⁵/1.4379x10⁸⁷ = M_o/2M_∞ =0.01401..

R_Hubble*(2nd Inflaton) = n_criticalR_Hubble = 3.746...x10²⁸ m ~ 4 Trillion lightyears
M_∞(2nd Inflaton)=R_Hubble*c²/2G_o = 1.517...x10⁵⁵ kg for M_o* = 0.02802M_∞* = 4.2510x10⁵³ kg

L_{2nd Big Bang}/a_deBroglie*=G_oM_o*/l_Weyl²/R_Hubble*²f_Weyl² = 4.7233x10⁸⁷/3.3714x10⁸⁹ = M_o*/2M_∞*= 0.01401...

(a) 2pG_o.m_c²/hc=Alpha¹⁸ and m_c=m_P defines m_P for Alpha¹⁸=1.
(b) E_Weyl=hf_Weyl=E_ss.f_ps²=√{2πG_o.m_e²/4Alpha.hc.e²}=m_e/(2em_P√alpha)=1/e*.
(c) 2e.R_e.=e*.l_Planck√Alpha.
(d) E_o=e√(E/Alpha)=1.886461127x10³⁸ C* (Charge-Seed)
(e) M_o/m_c=1.813713x10⁵¹/9.92474572x10^-28
.....M_o/m_c=1.827469354x10⁷⁸.......(No of Seed-Nucleons)
.....M_∞/m_c=6.519663x10⁷⁹.......(No of Nucleons)
(f) Ol_Planck=l_Planck.√Alpha=e/c² (Stoney Units).

Electromagnetic Finestructure: a_e = 2pke²/hc = e²/2e_ohc
Gravitational Finestructure (Electron): a_g = 2pG_om_e²/hc = {m_e/m_Planck}²
Gravitational Finestructure (Primordial Nucleon): a_n = 2pG_om_c²/hc
Gravitational Finestructure (Planck Boson): a_Planck = 2pG_om_Planck²/hc


1/E_ps=e*=2R_ec²=√{4αhce²/2πG_om_e²}=2e√α[m_P/m_e]=2e√{a_e/a_g}
= {2e²/m_e}√(k/G_o)=2e²/G_om_e = e²/2pe_om_e
for G_o = 1/k = 4pe_o for the cosmological unification of the finestructures for E_Weyl=E_ps modular dual to E_ss via M-duality coupling E_psE_ss=f_Weyl² and E_ps/E_ss=h².

E_ps = 1/E_ss = 1/e* = √{a_g/a_e}/2e = G_om_e/2e²

Yⁿ = R_Hubble/r_Weyl = 2pR_Hubble/l_Weyl = w_Weyl/H_o = 2pn_Weyl = 1.003849x10⁴⁹​

2nd Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=1: R_Hubble(1) = n₁R_Hubble = c/H_o(1) = (234.472)R_Hubble = 3.746x10²⁸ m* in 3.957 Trillion Years
3rd Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=2: R_Hubble(2) = n₁n₂R_Hubble = c/H_o(2) = (234.472)(245.813)R_Hubble = 9.208x10³⁰ m* in 972.63 Trillion Years
4th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=3: R_Hubble(3) = n₁n₂n₃R_Hubble = c/H_o(3) = (57,636.27)(257.252)R_Hubble = 2.369x10³³ m* in 250.24 Quadrillion Years
5th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=4: R_Hubble(4) = n₁n₂n₃n₄R_Hubble = c/H_o(4) = (14,827,044.63)(268.785)R_Hubble = 6.367x10³⁵ m* in 67.26 Quintillion Years
...
(k+1)th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=k: R_Hubble(k) = R_Hubble P n_k = c/H_o P n_k
...

n_k = ln{w_WeylR_Hubble(k)/c}/lnY = ln{w_Weyl/H_o(k)}/lnY​

It is well known, that the Radius of Curvature in the Field Equations of General Relativity relates to the Energy-Mass Tensor in the form of the critical density r_critical = 3H_o²/8pG and the Hubble Constant H_o as the square of frequency or alternatively as the time differential of frequency df/dt as a cosmically applicable angular acceleration independent on the radial displacement.

The scientific nomenclature (language) then describes this curved space in differential equations relating the positions of the 'points' in both space and time in a 4-dimensional description called Riemannian Tensor Space or similar.
This then leads mathematically, to the formulation of General Relativity in Einstein's field Equations:

for the Einstein-Riemann tensor

​

and is built upon ten so-called nonlinear coupled hyperbolic-elliptic partial differential equations, which needless to say, are mathematically rather complex and often cannot be solved analytically without simplifying the geometries of the parametric constituents (say objects interacting in so called tensor-fields of stress-energy {T_μν} and curvatures in the Riemann-Einstein tensor {G_μν}, either changing the volume in reduction Ricci tensor {R_ij} with scalar curvature R as {Rg_μν} for the metric tensor {g_μν} or keeping the volume of considered space invariant to volume change in a Tidal Weyl tensor {R_μν}).

The Einstein-Riemann tensor then relates Curvature Radius R to the Energy-Mass tensor E=Mc² via the critical density as 8pG/c⁴=3H_o²V_criticalM_criticalc²/M_criticalc⁴ = 3H_o²V_critical/c² = 3V_critical/R² as Curvature Radius R by the Hubble Law applicable say to a nodal Hubble Constant H_o = c/R_Hubble.

The cosmological field equations then can be expressed as the square of the nodal Hubble Constant and inclusive of a 'dark energy' terms often identified with the Cosmological Constant of Albert Einstein, here denoted L_Einstein.

Substituting the Einstein Lambda with the time differential for the square of nodal Hubble frequency as the angular acceleration acting on a quantized volume of space however; naturally and universally replaces the enigma of the 'dark energy' with a space inherent angular acceleration component, which can be identified as the 'universal consciousness quantum' directly from the standard cosmology itself.

The field equations so can be generalised in a parametrization of the Hubble Constant assuming a cyclic form, oscillating between a minimum and maximum value given by H_o=dn/dt for cycletime n=H_ot and where then time t is the 4-vector timespace of Minkowski lightpath x=ct.

The Einstein Lambda then becomes then the energy-acceleration difference between the baryonic mass content of the universe and an inherent mass energy related to the initial condition of the oscillation parameters for the nodal Hubble Constant.

L_Einstein = G_oM_o/R(n)² - 2cH_o/(n+1)³ = Cosmological Acceleration - Intrinsic Universal Milgröm Deceleration as: g_mnL = 8pG/c⁴ T_mn - G_mn

then becomes G_mn + g_mnL = 8pG/c⁴ T_mn and restated in a mass independent form for an encompassment of the curvature finestructures.



For the Quantum Big Bang and a cycletime n_Weyl=H_ot_Weyl = ct_Weyl/R_Hubble, the nodal Hubble Constant took the form of the maximized Hubble Frequency as a wormhole wavelength l_Weyl=c/f_Weyl = n_WeylR_Hubble and so showing the frequency ratio between the minimum and maximum Hubble nodes as the ratio H_o/f_Weyl.

Here M_o defines the Quantum Big Bang mass seedling as a fraction of the M_critical, the difference defining the deceleration parameter from the Einstein Lambda for n=0, that is the singularity event of creation in

L_Einstein(n_Weyl) = Lambda = Omega - Universal = G_oM_o/l² - 2cH_o t ~ 2.015x10⁸⁵ linear acceleration units and defining a Sarkar Constant
L_Sarkar = L_Einstein.R_Hubble/a_deBroglie = G_oM_o/c² from the original de Broglie matter wave hyper acceleration given by
a_deBroglie = R_Hubblef_Weyl² = R_Hubblec²/l_Weyl² ~ 1.4379..x10⁸⁷ m/s².

For positive Lambda the Gravitational Omega |W| will be greater than the Intrinsic Universal Milgröm Deceleration |a_Milgröm| and for negative Lambda the Intrinsic Universal Deceleration |a_Milgröm| will be greater than the Gravitational Omega |W| to define the 'Dark Energy' as a Quintessence Acceleration and expressed as an overall cosmic evolution in physical consciousness.


Considering the critical mass of the universe in a static Schwarzschild metric of topological closure calculates R_Hubble = 2G_oM_critical/c² for M_critical = c²R_Hubble/2G_o for M_o/2M_critical = G_oM_o/c²R_Hubble = L_Einstein /a_deBroglie = M_o/2M_critical = 0.01401.. to indicate a 'missing mass' or baryonic matter energy deficiet at n=n_Weyl and for which the intrinsic Milgröm deceleration can be ignored in a magnitude differential of 10⁹⁴.

The 'dark matter' component at the Weyl time of the Big Bang so comprised 2.80% as the baryonic mass seedling M_o relative to the critical closure mass of M_critical.

The 'dark energy' component at the Weyl time can be calculated in units of acceleration from the time dependent intrinsic universal Milgröm deceleration and the measured or observed 'dark matter' component as their difference and as the Einstein Lambda.


For a present cycle time n_present=1.1324... and a Constant G_oXⁿM_oYⁿ from X+Y=XY=i²=-1=e^ip (Euler Identity)

a_Milgröm(n_present) = -2c²/(2.1324..)³R_Hubble = -1.1619..x10^-10 m/s² for a (constant or quintessential-dynamic) baryonic mass seedling M_o
W_present = G_oM_o(n_present+1)²/R_Hubble²n_present²= 2.793..x10^-11 m/s² for an evolving Baryon seed M(n)=M_o.{Yⁿ} for about 4.80x10^-11 m/s².
In this case, the baryonic mass seed has grown by a factor of about 1.72 to 1.72(2.8)=4.8% of the total energy and as the measured 'Dark Energy' Component of the standard cosmological model.
G(n)=G_o.Xⁿ for G(n)m_o²=G_oXⁿm₁Y^k.m₂Y^n-k with a Geometric Mean G_oXⁿ√{m₁m₂Y^k+n-k}=G_om₁m₂.Xⁿ.√Yⁿ=G_oM_o.√Xⁿ for M_o representing √{m₁m₂}


For a cosmological redshift calculated as z=2.15, Lambda first attained its zero value in balancing the Gravitational Omega with the Intrinsic Universal Deceleration.
For a present time the Lambda is negative as the summation of the present time Omega and Milgröm Deceleration as W_present - a_Milgröm(n_present) = -8.83x10^-11 m/s² and for a percentage distribution of cosmic accelerations:

Lambda = L_present/a_Milgröm(n_present) = 0.760
Omega =W_present/a_Milgröm(n_present) = 0.240
Universal = 1 for the evolved baryonic mass seed M_o relative to M_critical.

​

Dark Energy Λ(n) = G_oM_o/R(n)²- 2cH_o/(n+1)³.[/sub]

The derivative Λ'(n) = -2G_oM_o R'(n)/R(n)³ + 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ = 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ - 2G_oM_o H_o²(n+1)/c²n³
Then the absolute minimum for Λ'(n)=0 and for n=0.2389... becomes:
Λ(0.2389) =2.12319...x10^-10 - 5.92482...x10^-10 = -3.80163...x10^-10 (m/s²)*.

The roots for Λ(n)=0 are calculated via 2c³/G_oM_oH_o=(n+1)⁵/n² as n₁=0.10823... and n₂=3.40055...
This corresponds then to the Dark Energy beginning at the very high positive value of 2x10⁸⁵ (m/s²)* at the instanton and reaching its first zero for the galaxy formation in the overall de Sitter universe after 1.83 billion years.

This process of galaxy formation then peaks at the minimum so 4.04 billion years after the Big Bang and in tandem with the galaxy evolution peaking (0.2389..-0.2352..=0.0037) or so 62.5 million years earlier.
The Dark Matter epoch begins 1.83 billion years after the instanton-inflaton and ends so 3.4 cycles afterwards at a 'oscillation coordinate' of 3.4R_Hubble or about 57.5 billion years.

For the present time then, the de Sitter-anti de Sitter cosmo-evolutionary coupling has; and due to the lightspeed expansion of the de Sitter universe and compared to the inertia slowing of the anti de Sitter cosmology, diverged in the factor D(n)=√Xⁿ and which calculates as D(n_present=1.1324..)=0.7615...
This divergence increases over linear time with the oscillatory de Sitter universe encompassing the asymptotic anti de Sitter universe.
The Dark Energy, as a 'bookkeeper', so 'fades out' by the D(n) factor over linear time in the hyperbolic curvature expansion with the MILGROM diminishing slower than the OMEGA.

This 'account-keeping' of the 'Dark Energy' 'solves' Edward Witten's 'dilemma' and 'his most troublesome professional observation'.
Iow, Einstein was right after all of having made a blunder, which wasn't a blunder.
The Cosmological can be defined as in this paper, but OVERALL it is ZERO, just as Ed Witten wishes for in M-Theory.

An interview with him, stating this is reproduced below from the 'stringsite website'
http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

[Excerpt Quote:]
Why is it so hard to break supersymmetry in string theory?

"Well, if I knew the answer, if I knew how Nature has done supersymmetry breaking, then I could tell you why humans had such trouble figuring it out. But I can say one thing about it. When supersymmetry is not broken, it's easy to get a zero cosmological constant in string theory. And although a zero cosmological constant might not be the truth, it's incredibly close to the truth. If you break supersymmetry, if you do it the wrong way, you're going to get a cosmological constant that's much too big, and then you may well get associated problems, such as instabilities, runaways and so on. So it's easy to find ways that string theory could break supersymmetry, but they all have bad consequences.
So I assume we're missing something, which is the answer to your question."

How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?

"I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is." [endofquote]


COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT

Λ(n→∞)=Λ_∞=G_oM_o/R_Hubble² =7.894940144...x10^-12 (m/s²)*.

This represents 0.705% of the maximum Lambda at the instanton-inflaton.
The Dark Energy component in the HDU for this present NOW-Time so is about 8.82x10^-11 (m/s²)* as the Omega is defined in G_oM_o/R² ~2.80x10^-11 (m/s²)*.

In terms of accelerations then; the Dark Energy represents 76.0% of the intrinsic deceleration and the Newtonian-Einsteinian inertia component the remainder of 24.0%.
The percentages for the Dark Energy in the (5D/11D de Sitter and the 5D/10D anti de Sitter) so are:
(Omega[dS,adS],Lambda[dS,adS]) = ([24.0;18.8],[76.0;81.6]) and for an arithmetic mean or average of [21.4;78.8].


In terms of the Dark Energy magnitude differential |Λ_present-Λ_∞|/|Λ_∞|~123.9/7.9~15.7 and INCREASED in a factor of about 15.8 relative to the boundary- and initial condition of |Λ_BigBang-Λ_∞|/|Λ_∞|~0.993.
Λ_BigBang-Λ_present|/|Λ_present|~10.7, meaning that the Dark Energy deviates in a factor of 10.8 from the boundary condition as applicable in the encompassing de Sitter cosmology.

The de Sitter universe occupies a 4-dimensional volume as a toroidalised Riemann Hypersphere, curvature radius R(n) with the boundary of a 3-dimensional surface in V₄=½π²R⁴ and dV₄/dR=2π²R³ representing this boundary condition geometrically (Horn Torus).

The positively curved universe then 'oscillates' as a Standing Wave in between the Hubble-Nodes and 'envelopes' the negatively curved universe, which expands asymptotically from the 0-node of the Big Bang to the 1-node maximised in R_Hubble=c/H_o.
The Volumar-ratio between the negatively curved universe and the positively curved universe so becomes a DIM-Factor:
DIM(n) = 2π²R(n)³/n.2π²R_Hubble³=n²/(n+1)³ and for a DIM(n_present)=0.132..=1/7.561..

There are so 7.56 anti de Sitter spacetimes within the de Sitter spacetime at the present time and the initialising Baryon-Seed M_o has INCREASED in the factor D(n_present)=0.7615=1/1.313 by so 31.3% for G(n)M(n)m(n) or D(n_present)=1.7245 or so 72.45% for G(n)M(n) with M(n)=M_oYⁿ.

There must so be a Dark Matter component coupled to the Baryon seed, which has grown from 2.8% to 2.8x1.313~3.676% and 2.8x1.72~4.83% and which projects the 'evolved' baryonic matter in the anti de Sitter universe into the de Sitter enveloping universe.

The Dark Energy so can be said to be the ZPE; is however not characterised by the continuous creation of particle-antiparticle pairings as postulated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and related derivations; but by the space occupying quantum gravitational wormhole singularity E_ZPE=4pE_Weyl/l_Weyl³= 2.5133x10⁶⁴ J/m³.

As there was NO Antimatter created in the Big Bang, the particular antistates of Antimatter all reside in the de Sitter universe and only materialise physically when the process of pair-creation is called for via the basic transformation laws of the quantum {E=mc²=hf=kT}.

The Dark Energy, as the Einstein-Lambda though finds itself in a CONSTANT HARMONIC DANCE with Newton's Omega to ensure the continuation and contingency of all the total energy content in the FINITY of the anti de Sitter cosmology and which had emerged as FINETUNED part of the INFINITY of the de Sitter cosmology as part of the Source Energy quantum defined in E*.

 

Dear Dirk!

You asked:

“”Another question: Where do your ideas on cosmology differ basically from the so called mainstream cosmology or in your own words: the well tested models in this area? This because of your remark below:””

This is easy to answer and using your attachment about various alternative models as a background, I can say this.

Some of those alternative models are far more ‘mainstream aligned’ than others, say like the t’Hooft proposal and ideas which seek to extend and not devalue the mainstream Big Bang model, based on General Relativity.
The MOND model is said to be alternative and goes ‘too far’ in attempting to change the Newtonian astrophysics in a deeper way, than can be borne out by the observational evidence and related analysis.
And yet the MOND model has in its foundation the Milgröm acceleration parameter, which can and should, but has not yet been fully integrated into the ‘mainstream’.
So how does my cosmological model differ?

It incorporates the Milgröm parameter in full accordance with the mainstream and omits the other aspects of MOND regarding the dark matter and the cosmic acceleration and velocity curves, which have been found to be incompatible with the mainstream models.
This then serves as an example. Other aspects of ‘alternative cosmologies’ which are disfavoured by the standard models are the ‘electric plasmas of Hannes Alven’ and the ‘Redshift controversies related to Halton Arp’. In particular the decade long debate in the mainstream, challenged by the ‘alternatives’ about the redshift measurements; questioning if they have to do with ‘tired light’ and/or the comoving reference frames and coordinates of the expanding universe model and the quasar redshifts seemingly originating from younger galaxies etc are ‘solved’ in the paper below.

Does the mainstream model predict an accelerating universe from high redshift values? And does the mainstream then propose the Einstein Lambda as the ‘Dark Matter’ we know to be in a deep relationship with any cosmological model?
Well, the paper below shows that the universe is not accelerating and makes a case how this relates to the redshift controversies.
So can you see now, how I am fully mainstream, yet ‘alternative’, in extending its data base?

If this information below, would be accepted by the academia now, many careers would be in jeopardy and not because some new revolutionary science has come to fore.
The reason for the problems of the ‘career scientists’ would be that they had interpreted their observational and experimental data insufficiently.
I am thinking of submitting this paper to Science, where it of course would be rejected, due to my non academically associated status. But should you share this information below with someone who can easily read the mathematical and physical arguments, then you might be surprised as to the logic of the paper. There are specific redshift intervals for example, which can easily be checked with any existing database to validate or refute the proposals made. This cosmology is fully testable and refutable.

So why did I question your gravitational dipole model? It appears to me to be a modernised version of the long debunked ‘push gravity’ Le Sage model from a few decades ago. Sure, it addresses the present problems in the Big Bang standard model and uses the new information, when it can do so. But overall it fails to address the origin of the Big Bang as the cosmogony and ontology of the physics itself.
A matter-antimatter cyclicity for the universe becomes revisited in another ‘alternative’ model of the ekpyrotic universe, namely that of Turok and Steinhardt and where higher dimensional branes collide in multiple Big Bangs. Both models fail to address in what space those collisions or matter-antimatter oscillations would and could occur.
One can have Unity within Separation and one can have Separation within Unification and whilst those two forms are philosophically and logically equivalent in status; they will lead to completely different cosmologies if applied in physical reality.

Allow me to elaborate, as this would be one of the fundamental postulates for your cosmic consciousness models.
Unity within Separation leads to the Many Worlds of quantum mechanics and a multiverse, each with its own spacetime and fundamental constants say. The Unity here is multivalued in separated worlds of expression. In terms of consciousness, each separate universe could define its own unity or sense of quantum entanglement and so on and on. I call this the ‘Devil’s Cosmology’, as the Separation of the data processors, say as consciousness carriers’ and shards of the original unity’ remain separated from each other in the fundamental parameters of what space and time might be and represent on the ultimate level.

Separation within Unity on the other hand allows the original definition (the Cosmic Logos as we might label it); to define a multiverse and many worlds in forever encompassing all such multiverses made from universes as an omniverse in a commonly shared universal spacetime, say as defined ad nauseum in the papers I have published. Here then, in the ‘Cosmic Logos Universe’, the concept of ‘physical consciousness’ as related to this universal spacetime, connecting all possible and potential universes becomes feasible; whilst in the
‘Devil’s Universe’ this concept becomes meaningless, due to the arbitrariness of the definitions for and of the basic spacetime structure.

And here we agree, the concept of consciousness as the ZPE, as the quantum form of the spacetime finestructure say, must be decisive parameter for the cosmogony preceding in a metaphysical sense the physics of material mensuration and measurement.

I hope this answers your question about how ‘alternative’ my work is and how far it aligns to the mainstream.

The universe will not experience a ‘heat death’ running out of nuclear fuel to energize the formation of stars in an ever increasing entropy of quantum states. It will rebang itself in 4 trillion years in a resetting of the original cosmological parameters, which birthed the material universe from its metaphysical precursor or ‘image’. Then 973 Trillion years from the Big Bang a 3rd Quantum Big Bang will occur and so on and on.
The universe is not accelerating but behaves as expected by the standard model since the latter’s conception in the 1920’s. The universe is cyclic, as both the gravitational dipole model and the ekpyrotic brane collission models propose; but it is cyclic in another form of an electromagnetic intersection of the higher dimensional boundary of the holographically defined cosmology. The holographic universe of the 5D-Kaluza-Klein cosmology is very mainstream now, even if the string skeptics often diminish the validation work already done in showing how classical Shannon entropy relates to the quantum entropy of Black Holes. Bekenstein and t’Hooft and Maldacena and the string cosmologists can attest to that. The 5D/11D anti de Sitter universe is open, with negative hyperbolic curvature and its problem in the holographic universe model is, that its boundary is at infinity. This problem is solved however if you place this infinity event horizon as the actual scale of an 5D/11D de Sitter universe, which is closed with positive spheroidal curvature. So you have two universe interacting and colocally intersecting each other. This was made possible by the so called inflation string-brane epoch which the mainstream has failed to appropriately simply locate timewise before the Big Bang and something Roger Penrose has correctly identified in some data sets, but like the other ‘mainstream alternatives’ then tries to identify with a cyclic universe, now defined in entropy states at the boundaries. Simply allowing all parameters to be noninertial and massless as the Goldstone Boson strings say, solves all of those conundrums. The 5D Universe is descriptive of a 4th space dimension, which allows gravity to inhabit the 5th from a 6D string-brane continuum related in colocality in M-theory. I do not have the technical familiarity with the mathematics used to formalise this in academically acceptable terms and it is not necessary to do so, if the overall purpose and foundation of M-theory is understood.

So I do ask you to peruse the paper below and especially the 2 diagrams, which I have redone and hopefully improved.

Dear Dirk; if you can begin to ‘see through the mathematics’ and experience the simple elegance and beauty of the ‘Cosmic Logos Universe’ in a comprehensive overview not requiring the detailed mathematics (which is mainly simple calculus and algebra in any case); then it will be so easy to correlate and corroborate your expertise of the brain and the medical pathology with this simple overview of what the physical consciousness as the ‘Source Energy’ of Creation must be and is.
It is only a question of time, before the new paradigm appears in the collective academic mainstream model, as the collective planetary and cosmic psyche has already created and is well aware of the New Cosmology, we both seek to help to implement for a new heaven and a new earth, poetically writing.

Faithfully; TonyB.

The Evolution of the Universe in the Oscillation of its Curvature Radius and its Accelerations​

Abstract:
The overall evolution of the universe is shown to be a function of initial and boundary conditions, commonly described in a Big Bang singularity event, which can be modeled on an emergence of the classical relativistic thermodynamic expansion of the cosmology from a prior quantum gravitational background: n_Weyl = l_Weyl/R_Hubble for a parametrized scalefactor R(n)=R_Hubble{n/[n+1]} and R(n_Weyl)= l_Weyl/{1+n_Weyl} = wormhole lambda l_Weyl in the limit of the inflaton.
Quantum gravity then expressed in terms of an intrinsic multidimensional maximum curvature, here termed the wormhole Weyl curvature radius of heterotic supermembrane HE(8x8) is shown to become a minimum boundary condition initiating the Quantum Big Bang following a stringed brane epoch of inflation, which corrolarily defined the boundary-initial condition for the Hubble Event Horizon as the modular or quantum entangled maximum.

The expansion of the universe in post-braned time evolution from the Weyl quantum gravitational curvature so evolves in hyperbolic space towards its Hubble curvature radius (in 10D - 5D anti de Sitter spacetime), but is mirror modulated in the evolution of the Hubble boundary maximum (in 11D Witten - 5D de Sitter spacetime) in a closed spherical spacetime topology.
The negatively curved universe asymptotically approaches the de Sitter Event Horizon in a curvature radius finestructured in the Einstein-Riemann tensor maximized in an intrinsic 'Big Bang' acceleration of 2cH_o=1.1268x10^-9 m/s² and where H_o describes a 'nodal' Hubble frequency as the inflaton Hubble event horizon as the de Sitter boundary in the Schwarzschild Curvature for the universe defined in a 'dark energy' closure mass M_∞. At any time t=n/H_o within a greater cycle count n<234.47 the original wormhole radius of maximum curvature 'flattens' asymptotically towards its modular mirror R_Hubble=2G_oM_∞/c² and attaining a value of 0.9957.. at the critical coordinate, when the next inflation epoch eventuates to reset the initial parameters in a new de Sitter Hubble event horizon and therefore a new 'closure mass M_∞.

The positively curved universe approaches the critical coordinate from the minimum curvature initialized by the first inflaton defined in a de Broglie matter wave acceleration of a_deBroglie = R_Hubble.f_Weyl²=1.438x10⁸⁷ m/s² for a timeperiod of about 3.96 Trillion 'civil years'.

The matter wave inflation or hyperacceleration becomes proportional to a baryonic mass seedling M_o to then initialize the Quantum Big Bang in classical relativity in the form of the Einstein Lambda so defining the 'dark energy' not as an antigravitational cosmic force, but as the 'missing acceleration' to correlate and balance the two curvatures of the cosmological boundaries.

As the absolute minimum of the Einstein Lambda, which changes from positive to 0 to negative to 0 to an asymptotic value of G_oM_o/{R_Hubble(n/[n+1])}² = 7.964x10^-12 m/s² at the critical coordinate is attained for L(n=0.2389) = -3.8016x10^-10 m/s² (at a cosmological redshift of z=1.177 for a 'peak of galaxy formation'); the universe 'appears' to accelerate in the change of the gradient of the Einstein Lambda from negative to positive, but within a positive gravitational Omega of G_oM_o/{R_Hubble(n/[n+1)}²= 2.1232x10^-10 m/s² and an intrinsic (Milgröm) deceleration of -2cH_o/(1.2389)³ =-3.8016x10^-10 m/s² calculated as: -3.8016x10^-10 m/s² = 2.1232x10^-10 m/s² - 5.9248x10^-10 m/s².

The overall cosmology so becomes Euclidean flat as a n-cyclic universe of 16.9 billion year halfcycles, the overall inflaton cyclicity requiring 234.47 cycles to reset the initial parameters to reinitialize the next Quantum Big Bang singularity event.
This 'recharging' or rebirth of the universe then reinitializes the following cosmological boundary values:

R_Hubble(1st Inflaton)=l_WeylH^1/3/2p = 1.59767545x10²⁶ m and with H a space quantization constant for the number of wormhole quanta in the inflaton volumar dV₄/dR=2p²R_Hubble³
M_∞(1st Inflaton)=R_Hubble.c²/2G_o =6.47058558x10⁵² kg

L_{1st Big Bang}/a_deBroglie= G_oM_o/l_Weyl² = 2.015x10⁸⁵/1.4379x10⁸⁷ = M_o/2M_∞ =0.01401..

R_Hubble*(2nd Inflaton) = n_criticalR_Hubble = 3.746...x10²⁸ m ~ 4 Trillion lightyears
M_∞(2nd Inflaton)=R_Hubble*c²/2G_o = 1.517...x10⁵⁵ kg for M_o* = 0.02802M_∞* = 4.2510x10⁵³ kg

L_{2nd Big Bang}/a_deBroglie*=G_oM_o*/l_Weyl²/R_Hubble*²f_Weyl² = 4.7233x10⁸⁷/3.3714x10⁸⁹ = M_o*/2M_∞*= 0.01401...

(a) 2pG_o.m_c²/hc=Alpha¹⁸ and m_c=m_P defines m_P for Alpha¹⁸=1.
(b) E_Weyl=hf_Weyl=Ess.fps²=√ol]pGo.me²4Alpha.hc.e²=1/e*.
(c) 2e.R_e.=e*.l_Planck√Alpha.
(d) E_o=e√(E/Alpha)=1.886461127x10³⁸ C* (Charge-Seed)
(e) M_o/m_c=1.813713x10⁵¹/9.92474572x10^-28
.....M_o/m_c=1.827469354x10⁷⁸.......(No of Seed-Nucleons)
.....M_∞/m_c=6.519663x10⁷⁹.......(No of Nucleons)
(f) Ol_Planck=l_Planck.√Alpha=e/c² (Stoney Units).

Electromagnetic Finestructure: a_e = 2pke²/hc = e²/2e_ohc
Gravitational Finestructure (Electron): a_g = 2pG_om_e²/hc = {m_e/m_Planck}²
Gravitational Finestructure (Primordial Nucleon): a_n = 2pG_om_c²/hc
Gravitational Finestructure (Planck Boson): a_Planck = 2pG_om_Planck²/hc


1/E_ps=e*=2R_ec²=√{4αhce²/2πG_om_e²}=2e√α[m_P/m_e]=2e√{a_e/a_g}
= {2e²/m_e}√(k/G_o)=2e²/G_om_e = e²/2pe_om_e
for G_o = 1/k = 4pe_o for the cosmological unification of the finestructures for E_Weyl=E_ps modular dual to E_ss via M-duality coupling E_psE_ss=f_Weyl² and E_ps/E_ss=h².

E_ps = 1/E_ss = 1/e* = √{a_g/a_e}/2e = G_om_e/2e²

Yⁿ = R_Hubble/r_Weyl = 2pR_Hubble/l_Weyl = w_Weyl/H_o = 2pn_Weyl = 1.003849x10⁴⁹​

2nd Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=1: R_Hubble(1) = n₁R_Hubble = c/H_o(1) = (234.472)R_Hubble = 3.746x10²⁸ m* in 3.957 Trillion Years
3rd Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=2: R_Hubble(2) = n₁n₂R_Hubble = c/H_o(2) = (234.472)(245.813)R_Hubble = 9.208x10³⁰ m* in 972.63 Trillion Years
4th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=3: R_Hubble(3) = n₁n₂n₃R_Hubble = c/H_o(3) = (57,636.27)(257.252)R_Hubble = 2.369x10³³ m* in 250.24 Quadrillion Years
5th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=4: R_Hubble(4) = n₁n₂n₃n₄R_Hubble = c/H_o(4) = (14,827,044.63)(268.785)R_Hubble = 6.367x10³⁵ m* in 67.26 Quintillion Years
...
(k+1)th Inflaton/Quantum Big Bang redefines for k=k: R_Hubble(k) = R_Hubble P n_k = c/H_o P n_k
...

n_k = ln{w_WeylR_Hubble(k)/c}/lnY = ln{w_Weyl/H_o(k)}/lnY​

It is well known, that the Radius of Curvature in the Field Equations of General Relativity relates to the Energy-Mass Tensor in the form of the critical density r_critical = 3H_o²/8pG and the Hubble Constant H_o as the square of frequency or alternatively as the time differential of frequency df/dt as a cosmically applicable angular acceleration independent on the radial displacement.

The scientific nomenclature (language) then describes this curved space in differential equations relating the positions of the 'points' in both space and time in a 4-dimensional description called Riemannian Tensor Space or similar.
This then leads mathematically, to the formulation of General Relativity in Einstein's field Equations:

for the Einstein-Riemann tensor

​

and is built upon ten so-called nonlinear coupled hyperbolic-elliptic partial differential equations, which needless to say, are mathematically rather complex and often cannot be solved analytically without simplifying the geometries of the parametric constituents (say objects interacting in so called tensor-fields of stress-energy {T_μν} and curvatures in the Riemann-Einstein tensor {G_μν}, either changing the volume in reduction Ricci tensor {R_ij} with scalar curvature R as {Rg_μν} for the metric tensor {g_μν} or keeping the volume of considered space invariant to volume change in a Tidal Weyl tensor {R_μν}).

The Einstein-Riemann tensor then relates Curvature Radius R to the Energy-Mass tensor E=Mc² via the critical density as 8pG/c⁴=3H_o²V_criticalM_criticalc²/M_criticalc⁴ = 3H_o²V_critical/c² = 3V_critical/R² as Curvature Radius R by the Hubble Law applicable say to a nodal Hubble Constant H_o = c/R_Hubble.

The cosmological field equations then can be expressed as the square of the nodal Hubble Constant and inclusive of a 'dark energy' terms often identified with the Cosmological Constant of Albert Einstein, here denoted L_Einstein.

Substituting the Einstein Lambda with the time differential for the square of nodal Hubble frequency as the angular acceleration acting on a quantized volume of space however; naturally and universally replaces the enigma of the 'dark energy' with a space inherent angular acceleration component, which can be identified as the 'universal consciousness quantum' directly from the standard cosmology itself.

The field equations so can be generalised in a parametrization of the Hubble Constant assuming a cyclic form, oscillating between a minimum and maximum value given by H_o=dn/dt for cycletime n=H_ot and where then time t is the 4-vector timespace of Minkowski lightpath x=ct.

The Einstein Lambda then becomes then the energy-acceleration difference between the baryonic mass content of the universe and an inherent mass energy related to the initial condition of the oscillation parameters for the nodal Hubble Constant.

L_Einstein = G_oM_o/R(n)² - 2cH_o/(n+1)³ = Cosmological Acceleration - Intrinsic Universal Milgröm Deceleration as: g_mnL = 8pG/c⁴ T_mn - G_mn

then becomes G_mn + g_mnL = 8pG/c⁴ T_mn and restated in a mass independent form for an encompassment of the curvature finestructures.



For the Quantum Big Bang and a cycletime n_Weyl=H_ot_Weyl = ct_Weyl/R_Hubble, the nodal Hubble Constant took the form of the maximized Hubble Frequency as a wormhole wavelength l_Weyl=c/f_Weyl = n_WeylR_Hubble and so showing the frequency ratio between the minimum and maximum Hubble nodes as the ratio H_o/f_Weyl.

Here M_o defines the Quantum Big Bang mass seedling as a fraction of the M_critical, the difference defining the deceleration parameter from the Einstein Lambda for n=0, that is the singularity event of creation in

L_Einstein(n_Weyl) = Lambda = Omega - Universal = G_oM_o/l² - 2cH_o t ~ 2.015x10⁸⁵ linear acceleration units and defining a Sarkar Constant
L_Sarkar = L_Einstein.R_Hubble/a_deBroglie = G_oM_o/c² from the original de Broglie matter wave hyper acceleration given by
a_deBroglie = R_Hubblef_Weyl² = R_Hubblec²/l_Weyl² ~ 1.4379..x10⁸⁷ m/s².

For positive Lambda the Gravitational Omega |W| will be greater than the Intrinsic Universal Milgröm Deceleration |a_Milgröm| and for negative Lambda the Intrinsic Universal Deceleration |a_Milgröm| will be greater than the Gravitational Omega |W| to define the 'Dark Energy' as a Quintessence Acceleration and expressed as an overall cosmic evolution in physical consciousness.


Considering the critical mass of the universe in a static Schwarzschild metric of topological closure calculates R_Hubble = 2G_oM_critical/c² for M_critical = c²R_Hubble/2G_o for M_o/2M_critical = G_oM_o/c²R_Hubble = L_Einstein /a_deBroglie = M_o/2M_critical = 0.01401.. to indicate a 'missing mass' or baryonic matter energy deficiet at n=n_Weyl and for which the intrinsic Milgröm deceleration can be ignored in a magnitude differential of 10⁹⁴.

The 'dark matter' component at the Weyl time of the Big Bang so comprised 2.80% as the baryonic mass seedling M_o relative to the critical closure mass of M_critical.

The 'dark energy' component at the Weyl time can be calculated in units of acceleration from the time dependent intrinsic universal Milgröm deceleration and the measured or observed 'dark matter' component as their difference and as the Einstein Lambda.


For a present cycle time n_present=1.1324... and a Constant G_oXⁿM_oYⁿ from X+Y=XY=i²=-1=e^ip (Euler Identity)

a_Milgröm(n_present) = -2c²/(2.1324..)³R_Hubble = -1.1619..x10^-10 m/s² for a (constant or quintessential-dynamic) baryonic mass seedling M_o
W_present = G_oM_o(n_present+1)²/R_Hubble²n_present²= 2.793..x10^-11 m/s² for an evolving Baryon seed M(n)=M_o.{Yⁿ} for about 4.80x10^-11 m/s².
In this case, the baryonic mass seed has grown by a factor of about 1.72 to 1.72(2.8)=4.8% of the total energy and as the measured 'Dark Energy' Component of the standard cosmological model.
G(n)=G_o.Xⁿ for G(n)m_o²=G_oXⁿm₁Y^k.m₂Y^n-k with a Geometric Mean G_oXⁿ√{m₁m₂Y^k+n-k}=G_om₁m₂.Xⁿ.√Yⁿ=G_oM_o.√Xⁿ for M_o representing √{m₁m₂}


For a cosmological redshift calculated as z=2.15, Lambda first attained its zero value in balancing the Gravitational Omega with the Intrinsic Universal Deceleration.
For a present time the Lambda is negative as the summation of the present time Omega and Milgröm Deceleration as W_present - a_Milgröm(n_present) = -8.83x10^-11 m/s² and for a percentage distribution of cosmic accelerations:

Lambda = L_present/a_Milgröm(n_present) = 0.760
Omega =W_present/a_Milgröm(n_present) = 0.240
Universal = 1 for the evolved baryonic mass seed M_o relative to M_critical.

​

Dark Energy Λ(n) = G_oM_o/R(n)²- 2cH_o/(n+1)³.

The derivative Λ'(n) = -2G_oM_o R'(n)/R(n)³ + 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ = 6cH_o/(n+1)⁴ - 2G_oM_o H_o²(n+1)/c²n³
Then the absolute minimum for Λ'(n)=0 and for n=0.2389... becomes:
Λ(0.2389) =2.12319...x10^-10 - 5.92482...x10^-10 = -3.80163...x10^-10 (m/s²)*.

The roots for Λ(n)=0 are calculated via 2c³/G_oM_oH_o=(n+1)⁵/n² as n₁=0.10823... and n₂=3.40055...
This corresponds then to the Dark Energy beginning at the very high positive value of 2x10⁸⁵ (m/s²)* at the instanton and reaching its first zero for the galaxy formation in the overall de Sitter universe after 1.83 billion years.

This process of galaxy formation then peaks at the minimum so 4.04 billion years after the Big Bang and in tandem with the galaxy evolution peaking (0.2389..-0.2352..=0.0037) or so 62.5 million years earlier.
The Dark Matter epoch begins 1.83 billion years after the instanton-inflaton and ends so 3.4 cycles afterwards at a 'oscillation coordinate' of 3.4R_Hubble or about 57.5 billion years.

For the present time then, the de Sitter-anti de Sitter cosmo-evolutionary coupling has; and due to the lightspeed expansion of the de Sitter universe and compared to the inertia slowing of the anti de Sitter cosmology, diverged in the factor D(n)=√Xⁿ and which calculates as D(n_present=1.1324..)=0.7615...
This divergence increases over linear time with the oscillatory de Sitter universe encompassing the asymptotic anti de Sitter universe.
The Dark Energy, as a 'bookkeeper', so 'fades out' by the D(n) factor over linear time in the hyperbolic curvature expansion with the MILGROM diminishing slower than the OMEGA.

This 'account-keeping' of the 'Dark Energy' 'solves' Edward Witten's 'dilemma' and 'his most troublesome professional observation'.
Iow, Einstein was right after all of having made a blunder, which wasn't a blunder.
The Cosmological can be defined as in this paper, but OVERALL it is ZERO, just as Ed Witten wishes for in M-Theory.

An interview with him, stating this is reproduced below from the 'stringsite website'
http://www.superstringtheory.com/people/witten.html

[Excerpt Quote:]
Why is it so hard to break supersymmetry in string theory?

"Well, if I knew the answer, if I knew how Nature has done supersymmetry breaking, then I could tell you why humans had such trouble figuring it out. But I can say one thing about it. When supersymmetry is not broken, it's easy to get a zero cosmological constant in string theory. And although a zero cosmological constant might not be the truth, it's incredibly close to the truth. If you break supersymmetry, if you do it the wrong way, you're going to get a cosmological constant that's much too big, and then you may well get associated problems, such as instabilities, runaways and so on. So it's easy to find ways that string theory could break supersymmetry, but they all have bad consequences.
So I assume we're missing something, which is the answer to your question."

How can the cosmological constant be so close to zero but not zero?

"I really don't know. It's very perplexing that astronomical observations seem to show that there is a cosmological constant. It's definitely the most troublesome, for my interests, definitely the most troublesome, observation in physics in my lifetime. In my career that is." [endofquote]


COSMOLOGICAL CONSTANT

Λ(n→∞)=Λ_∞=G_oM_o/R_Hubble² =7.894940144...x10^-12 (m/s²)*.

This represents 0.705% of the maximum Lambda at the instanton-inflaton.
The Dark Energy component in the HDU for this present NOW-Time so is about 8.82x10^-11 (m/s²)* as the Omega is defined in G_oM_o/R² ~2.80x10^-11 (m/s²)*.

In terms of accelerations then; the Dark Energy represents 76.0% of the intrinsic deceleration and the Newtonian-Einsteinian inertia component the remainder of 24.0%.
The percentages for the Dark Energy in the (5D/11D de Sitter and the 5D/10D anti de Sitter) so are:
(Omega[dS,adS],Lambda[dS,adS]) = ([24.0;18.8],[76.0;81.6]) and for an arithmetic mean or average of [21.4;78.8].


In terms of the Dark Energy magnitude differential |Λ_present-Λ_∞|/|Λ_∞|~123.9/7.9~15.7 and INCREASED in a factor of about 15.8 relative to the boundary- and initial condition of |Λ_BigBang-Λ_∞|/|Λ_∞|~0.993.
Λ_BigBang-Λ_present|/|Λ_present|~10.7, meaning that the Dark Energy deviates in a factor of 10.8 from the boundary condition as applicable in the encompassing de Sitter cosmology.

The de Sitter universe occupies a 4-dimensional volume as a toroidalised Riemann Hypersphere, curvature radius R(n) with the boundary of a 3-dimensional surface in V₄=½π²R⁴ and dV₄/dR=2π²R³ representing this boundary condition geometrically (Horn Torus).

The positively curved universe then 'oscillates' as a Standing Wave in between the Hubble-Nodes and 'envelopes' the negatively curved universe, which expands asymptotically from the 0-node of the Big Bang to the 1-node maximised in R_Hubble=c/H_o.
The Volumar-ratio between the negatively curved universe and the positively curved universe so becomes a DIM-Factor:
DIM(n) = 2π²R(n)³/n.2π²R_Hubble³=n²/(n+1)³ and for a DIM(n_present)=0.132..=1/7.561..

There are so 7.56 anti de Sitter spacetimes within the de Sitter spacetime at the present time and the initialising Baryon-Seed M_o has INCREASED in the factor D(n_present)=0.7615=1/1.313 by so 31.3% for G(n)M(n)m(n) or D(n_present)=1.7245 or so 72.45% for G(n)M(n) with M(n)=M_oYⁿ.

There must so be a Dark Matter component coupled to the Baryon seed, which has grown from 2.8% to 2.8x1.313~3.676% and 2.8x1.72~4.83% and which projects the 'evolved' baryonic matter in the anti de Sitter universe into the de Sitter enveloping universe.

The Dark Energy so can be said to be the ZPE; is however not characterised by the continuous creation of particle-antiparticle pairings as postulated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and related derivations; but by the space occupying quantum gravitational wormhole singularity E_ZPE=4pE_Weyl/l_Weyl³= 2.5133x10⁶⁴ J/m³.

As there was NO Antimatter created in the Big Bang, the particular antistates of Antimatter all reside in the de Sitter universe and only materialise physically when the process of pair-creation is called for via the basic transformation laws of the quantum {E=mc²=hf=kT}.

The Dark Energy, as the Einstein-Lambda though finds itself in a CONSTANT HARMONIC DANCE with Newton's Omega to ensure the continuation and contingency of all the total energy content in the FINITY of the anti de Sitter cosmology and which had emerged as FINETUNED part of the INFINITY of the de Sitter cosmology as part of the Source Energy quantum defined in E*.

From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2015 10:46 PM
To: tony Bermanseder
Subject: do your ideas differ?


Dear Tony, Thanks for the extensive mail. To be honest: I can only follow a limited part of it and certainly cannot comprehend the mathematical equations. I simply donot have the education and training for this. Nevertheless my intuition tells me that cosmology made real progress in penetrating in the fabric of reality and thereby also adresses questions on other than cosmic scales. One example of this is the paper of Askathof that is enclosed. What do you think about this paper, that seems quite relevant for my work: are cosmological principles applicable to brain function and consciousness?

Another question: Where do your ideas on cosmology differ basically from the so called mainstream cosmology or in your own words: the well tested models in this area? This because of your remark below:

I can only support your allegiance to the gravitational dipoles in a few ways as proposed Dirk, as this approach correctly identifies the problems regarding Dark Matter and Dark Energy and the Cosmological constant, but deviates too much from the well tested cosmological standard models.

I noticed that there is quite some alternative cosmology around (see overview enclosed).

Best regards, Dirk

 

Manuscript Title: The Evolution of the Universe in the Oscillation of its Curvature Radius and its Accelerations
Author: Bermanseder
Manuscript Number: aad5831

Dear Dr. Bermanseder:

Thank you for your submission to Science. We have successfully received your Report.

You can see the status of your manuscript at any time by logging into your account at the Science Journals Submission and Information Portal at https://cts.sciencemag.org/scc/login.html. Your manuscript number is noted above. Your manuscript is now undergoing an initial screening to determine whether it will be sent for in-depth review. If the manuscript is sent to review, its status will change to "To Review".

We encourage you to login and link your account to your ORCID ID, an identifier that facilitates correct attribution of your publications. To learn more about ORCID or to obtain an ORCID ID, visit their site at: http://orcid.org.

Sincerely,
The Editors
Science



06-Oct-2015

Manuscript ID: aad5831


Dear Dr. Bermanseder:

Thank you for submitting your manuscript "The Evolution of the Universe in the Oscillation of its Curvature Radius and its Accelerations" to Science. Unfortunately, this is not the sort of work that we publish and we are thus not considering it for publication. We appreciate your interest in Science.

Sincerely,

Monica Bradford
Managing Editor

 

Hi Dirk!

Please find the two diagrams attached.
I read your ‘Mind Uploading’ paper by V. Astakhov yesterday and agree with his statistical holographic geometry approach as a feasible model. You might have discerned that he uses the concept of curvature a lot, most likely with reference to the cosmologies.
His quadrillion nodes in his ‘toybrain’ would also relate to the total summation of cells in a standard human body, (estimated as (37.2) – 100 trillion and so 400 trillion + including bacteria) times a fundamental algorithmic constant 1/(6x10¹⁵) which then as a frequency gives the wavelength of orange light and close to the standard SI luminosity definition as a frequency of 5x10¹⁴ Hertz in the candela.
His idea of the holographic geometry is just what the Maldacena-Bekenstein (and co) also favour as a description of physical reality.


“Definition

Like most other SI base units, the candela has an operational definition—it is defined by a description of a physical process that will produce one candela of luminous intensity. Since the 16th General Conference on Weights and Measures (CGPM) in 1979, the candela has been defined as:^[6]
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540×10¹² hertz and that has a radiant intensity in that direction of ¹⁄₆₈₃ watt per steradian.
The definition describes how to produce a light source that (by definition) emits one candela. Such a source could then be used to calibrate instruments designed to measure luminous intensity.
The candela is sometimes still called by the old name candle,^[7] such as in foot-candle and the modern definition of candlepower.””


I have uploaded the paper I sent to research gate and also submitted it to Science. Of course it will be rejected; but I simply wanted a record of submitting it there; as in the viewpoint of someone actually reading it and taking it as a possibility; it could help others to enhance and present this in a better and more appropriate manner and format.
You could say, that I am basically simply working from an altruistic perspective and the only thing that matters is for the ideas for the new science paradigm to take roots in some minds able to foster it.

Cheers, TonyB

From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Tuesday, October 6, 2015 8:31 PM
To: Tony Bermanseder
Subject: Re: do your ideas differ?

Hallo Tony, Thanks a lot: clear. I did not receive your Figures properly. Can you send them seperately in JPEG format? I support your plan of submitting your paper fully. Would it be better to first try Arch/HEP or a more open journal that is in for new ideas?

Greetings, Dirk

 

Hi Allen!

This wormhole frequency (f_w), I am sure cannot be used as it is in any physicalised (hardware) computer technology. This frequency is about one billion times higher (with a correspondingly shorter wavelength) than the most energetic gamma rays produced in the laboratory.

However there is a frequency transduction f_w/6x10¹⁵=5x10¹⁴ Hz.

this is the frequency of orange light at a wavelength of 600 nanometers and close to the actual sodium line defining the luminosity in the SI-Unitary system (Candela)-see wiki reference below.

Definition
Like other SI base units, the candela has an operational definition-it is defined by a description of a physical process that will produce one candela of luminous intensity. Since the 16th General Conference on Weights and Measures(CGPM) in 1979, the candela has been defined as:^[6]
The candela is the luminous intensity, in a given direction, of a source that emits monochromatic radiation of frequency 540 × 10¹² hertzand that has a radiant intensity in that direction of ¹⁄₆₈₃ watt per steradian.
The definition describes how to produce a light source that (by definition) emits one candela. Such a source could then be used to calibrate instruments designed to measure luminous intensity.
The candela is sometimes still called by the old name candle [1], such as in foot-candleand the modern definition of candlepower.


This isn't really useful for your purposes however, but serves as some sort of 'transduction mechanism' how the wormhole frequency can be used in the lab.

I do not know the details, as my 'stuff' has been ignored by the staus quo for decades and it is highly unlikely that some yahoo forum reader knows how to modulate the wormhole frequency down to this obviously usable level of orange light. You might be aware, that many 'schools of philosophy' assign great importance to 'orange light', say the 'orange robes' of Tibetean monks and so on.

This expression L_o=1/6x10¹⁵, pops out in conjunction with 'c' and 'h' ad 'k' from my 'Fibonacci algorithm, so I know it is a key 'new fundamental constant of nature'.

However, except 'calling' ot the 'Light-Transduction-Constant' L_o; I could only use educated guesses as how to apply it in fundamental physics.

One key might be the number of cells in a human body in the 8-foldedness of 500/8=62.5 (Trillion).

One can then derive the alpha-frequency of the 'brain' to attune the 'self-consciousness' via the E=mc². The product f_wL_o then becomes a kind of OPTICAL UNIFICATION in the 'Unified Field' under utility of the third of certain 'expanson coefficients'.


For example the isotopes in the periodic tables are 'distributed' in the formulation:

[7k-(7-n)]E_w^k-1.{10/33}=[7(k-1) n].e*^1-k.{10/33}.

This gives series aligned to fundamental principles:


Identity-Series:{n=1; k=1,2,3,...}: 10/33; 4/825; 1/55000;...

Expansion-Series:{n=2; k=1,2,3,...}: 20/33; 3/550; 2/103125;...

Order-Series:{n=3; k=1,2,3,...}: 30/33; 1/165; 17/825000;...

Symmetry-Series:{n=4; k=1,2,3,...}: 40/33; 1/150; 3/137500;...

Infinity-Series:{n=5; k=1,2,3,...}: 50/33; 2/275;9/825000;...

Inversion-Series:{n=6; k=1,2,3,...}: 60/33; 13/1650; 1/41250;...

Reflection-Series:{n=7; k=1,2,3,...}: 70/33; 7/825; 7/275000;...

Relativity-Series:{n=8; k=1,2,3,...}: 80/33; 1/110; 1/37500;...

Quantisation-Series:{n=9; k=1,2,3,...}: 90/33; 8/825; 23/825000;...

NewIdentity-Series:{n=10; k=1,2,3,...}: 100/33; 17/1650; 1/34375;...


For k=1; the coefficients have numerators: 10, 20, 30,... and denominator 33.

For k=2; the coefficients have numerators: 8, 9, 10,...and denominator 1650.

For k=3; the coefficients have numerators: 15, 16, 17,... and denominator 825000.


I am afraid all of this is part of totally new physics for the 21st century. I have received little insights into the meaning of these series, except the first three of the Expansion-Series. The Identity-Series relates of course to the isotopes of the chemical elements.

Hydrogen-Deuterium-Tritium and so on in the n=1: k=1,2,3,.. succession.

In general terms this might (I am not sure about those interpretations, only about the significance of L_o); describe the EVOLUTION and EMERGENCE of MASS/INERTIA from those algorithmic principles.

1. Definition;

2. Emergence in Temperature Coupling (i.e. Big Bang thermodynamics) and

3. Evolution or 'consciousness' coupling in hybridisation between mass and monopolic radiation.

The first one, 20/33 defines Avogadro's Constant (of molarity) via the algorithmic proportionality ratios: ENERGY=k.TEMPERATURE=h.FREQUENCY=MASS.c².

Setting TIME=1/FREQUENCY=(/Inflaton/Wormhole-Perimeter)=Constant (Maximum/Minimum); you can get MASS=0.01183463299 and so the arbitary atomic mass unit of Carbon12.

Using 12 idealised nucleon masses m_c then gives A_v=MASS{20/33}/12m_c.

The second one, 3/550 gives the Luminosity Relation for the Universe as a Black Body:

L(n,T)=6π²[R(n)]²σ.T⁴=3H_oM_oc²/550n (σ=Stefan-Boltzmann Constant).

The third one, 2/103125 then leads to a strange recurrence of the number

f_wL_o{2/103125}=9696969696=f_selfE² for E=(2m)c² and so any human merkabah/vessel will carry a massdefined self-frequency linked to the cellular count of the body as a frequency selfstate count N=f_wL_o=Orange Light Frequency.

Say a 'human intercourse couple' has a combined weight of 140 kg.

Then this constant 9696969696=f_selff(140c²/N)² will define a selfcoupled frequency

f_self=9696969696(N/(140c²)²~15.3 Hertz and a typical alpha frequency.

Now the above, as said is rather speculative and I simply have not obtained any further insights on this and without further data I am simply not clever enough to take it much further here.

Pioneering the 'new physics' for decades without any 'professional-expert' feedback results in this sort of stagnation. Post 2013, this stuff will be worked out by people smarter and more experimentally attuned than what I am.

So your guesses as to transduce the unusable wormhole clock to the orange-light clock is about as good as mine.

The 12 edges of the stellated octahedron is inscribed in a cube (your die) and the octahedron is the third of the Platonic Solids (following the Tetrahedron and the Cube).

The fourth is the Dodecahedron of 12 Faces and this is followed by the Icosahedron with 20 triangular faces.

The 12 pentagonal faces of the Dodecahedron would have to be the '12-sided' die you are looking for in computational theory.

John Shadow



The basic Schumann frequency is coded esoterically in many quarters, not at least as the 'Measure of the Angel' measuring the 'New Jerusalem' (as planet Earth)in Rev.14.20 and Rev.22.16.

Here then 40,000/300,000=1,600 furlongs/12,000 furlongs =2/15.

What does this mean?

The circumference of planet Earth is say 40,000 km and light takes exactly 7.5 cycles in unit time to transverse it.

So the encoding 'angelic measure' is the lightpath as the fundamental Schumann Resonance, scripturally encoded.

Now QR relates two important frequencies to each other, one is the sourcesink frerquency 3x10³⁰ and the other its modulation in the factor 1/15x10⁶.
This results in the Frequency for Orange Light at 6000 angstroems as a standard for the unification of the optical wavelengths.
You could say that two primary colour triplets Red-Green-Blue and anticolours Cyan-Magenta-Yellow, which are additive in radiation and subtractive in mass.; combine to form a 'new'/intermediate colour sequence (Noah's Rainbow Covenant) with the basecolour Orange as the mixing of radiative Red and massparametric Yellow.

Now this modulation factor above results in a specific radio frequency, related to the magnetic permeability constant.

The wavelenght calculates as precisely the sqrt(15) for a radius of 0.6164 metres (near the golden mean 1/phi=0.618).

Now this then relates to Leonardo de Vinci's 'Vitruvius' or Cosmic Man, the Hindu 'Purusha' and the Adam Kadmon of Hebrew Kabbalah and the Sephirotic Tree.

​

The frequency connecting 'Cosmic Man' to the outer cosmos is so 77.46 kHz (wavelenghtxfrequency=lightspeed).
The 'cube' or 'sphere' for the Sqrt(15) wavelength would become the 'merkabah' for the individual as the 'persoanl spacecraft' and depicted by Vitruvius and their Golden Section, say.

Now taken as harmonics, the 7.746 and 77.47 Herzian waves hence assume a cosmic significance within a deeper context.


Tony B.

 

Dear Dirk!

You are getting about aren’t you!?
Yes I have great respect for t’Hooft , very clever and insightful. Verlinde is into strings, black holes and the thermodynamic entropy. So much of his ‘entropic gravity’ model works because it is linked to the holographic universe and therefore information processing and from that to the entropy of classical Shannon information to the Black Hole thermodynamics.
I would disagree to gravity being not a fundamental interaction, but agree that it can be modeled on say molecular gas and that gravity has a higher d component derives from its spin as a ‘closed string’ so being able to move detached from the 4d universe as a 3d manifold.
Lineweaver is a bit too sure of himself and his explanation of the comoving reference frame for the expanding universe and including the substitution of the relativistic Doppler Effect for some comoving coordinate system, and for which he was accredited, is imo built on false cosmological premises.
Tamara Davis works at the same university I got my degree from and is ok. I don’t know much about her work, but would suggest it is very mainstream.
You know that I state that the universe is NOT accelerating and so I would have problems getting anyone to listen.
By the way my science paper was rejected by automatic message, meaning it was not even considered on content.

This was the same reply word for word{except title}, I got for my Higgs neutrino paper as the only other paper submitted to Science.

The reference to ZPE and consciousness is wrapped in the link to it in the last paragraph;

””The de Sitter universe occupies a 4-dimensional volume as a toroidalised Riemann Hypersphere, curvature radius R(n) with the boundary of a 3-dimensional surface in V₄=½π²R⁴ and dV₄/dR=2π²R³ representing this boundary condition geometrically (Horn Torus).

The positively curved universe then 'oscillates' as a Standing Wave in between the Hubble-Nodes and 'envelopes' the negatively curved universe, which expands asymptotically from the 0-node of the Big Bang to the 1-node maximised in R_Hubble=c/H_o. The Volumar-ratio between the negatively curved universe and the positively curved universe so becomes a DIM-Factor: DIM(n) = 2π²R(n)³/n.2π²R_Hubble³=n²/(n+1)³ and for a DIM(n_present)=0.132..=1/7.561..

There are so 7.56 anti de Sitter spacetimes within the de Sitter spacetime at the present time and the initialising Baryon-Seed M_o has INCREASED in the factor D(n_present)=0.7615=1/1.313 by so 31.3% for G(n)M(n)m(n) or D(n_present)=1.7245 or so 72.45% for G(n)M(n) with M(n)=M_oYⁿ.

There must so be a Dark Matter component coupled to the Baryon seed, which has grown from 2.8% to 2.8x1.313~3.676% and 2.8x1.72~4.83% and which projects the 'evolved' baryonic matter in the anti de Sitter universe into the de Sitter enveloping universe.
The Dark Energy so can be said to be the ZPE; is however not characterised by the continuous creation of particle-antiparticle pairings as postulated in the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and related derivations; but by the space occupying quantum gravitational wormhole singularity E_ZPE=4pE_Weyl/l_Weyl³= 2.5133x10⁶⁴ J/m³.

As there was NO Antimatter created in the Big Bang, the particular antistates of Antimatter all reside in the de Sitter universe and only materialise physically when the process of pair-creation is called for via the basic transformation laws of the quantum {E=mc²=hf=kT}.

The Dark Energy, as the Einstein-Lambda though finds itself in a CONSTANT HARMONIC DANCE with Newton's Omega to ensure the continuation and contingency of all the total energy content in the FINITY of the anti de Sitter cosmology and which had emerged as FINETUNED part of the INFINITY of the de Sitter cosmology as part of the Source Energy quantum defined in E*.””

Then the E* is defined as the ZPE quantum in many other papers, including the one you read. Its parameters are a wavelength of 10^-22 metres and an energy of 1,240 TeV and so about 100 times greater than the maximum LHC capacity at 14 TeV.

Good to hear from you!

TonyB.

From: Dick Meijer
Sent: Saturday, October 10, 2015 1:49 AM
To: Tony Bermanseder
Subject: Re: do your ideas differ?

Dear Tony, Thanks again! I just came back from a nice Conference in Groningen about the Information Universe (program and speakers see internet http://www.informationuniverse.rug.nl/index.html ), poster included herewith. Quite some Australien scientists their and speakers like van t'Hooft, Verlinde, Lineweaver (quite superficial....). Tamare Davis (excellent, do you know her ?, would be a proper discussion partner).

Good that you sumitted your paper to Science anyway. I have read your paper again, can you, more precisely, indicate where ZPE and consciousness that you mention in your mail, is expressed in the submitted paper ?

Hope to hear from you,

Dirk