Φαινόμενη σωματιδιογένεση (εβερεττισμός - Hugh Everett III)

## BIG BANG = NEW PARTICLES APPEARING FROM NOTHING according to an observer who is NOT THE WHOLE UNIVERSE HERSELF/HIMSELF!

Possible causes of ultra-high energy particles: 1. black hole jets (it works in some cases but not in all), 2. wavefunctional causality breaking Everettian [many-worlded/related to alternative substantialities] Hubble volume noise. What is a Hubble volume? A subluminally expanding virtual sphere of spacetime (being subluminally expanding it allows future interactions with its central observer). Infinite Hubble volumes exist and THEY ARE OVERLAPPING thus our own substantiality does NOT end after our Hubble volume, because it's overlapping via intermediate Hubble volumes with all the universe; but the further we move from our Hubble volume, the weaker it becomes the partial entanglement via intermediaries of afar Hubble volumes. Why some scientists believe that ultra-high energy particles originate from afar Hubble volumes? First of all humanity does not have the mathematical formula of causal coherence of the universe in relation to an arbitrary central observer. This is important to understand the quantum decoherence of spacetime itself = dark energy. If we create an erroneous type without taking into account the overlapping nature of the Hubble volumes, we will produce obvious fallacies and the majority of the scientific community will reject that mistake. Ultra-high energy particles as a result of quantum decoherence of our Hubble volume is one possibility. Via the intermediary Hubble volumes, a central Hubble volume observer will never interact with regions many Hubble volumes afar, but still we are linked via the intermediary Hubble volumes in the same universe; but NOT all microstates are locked in the same substantiality. Afar Hubble volumes accept a vast number of microstate arrangements for each other (they cannot directly communicate; and they ontologically accept a huge list of alternative microstates about their afar counterpart Hubble volumes).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Causality breaking might be one cause of ultra-high energy particles. (In physics causality breaking is impossible; for example the Big Bang was a superluminal spatiotemporal expansion, and the simplistic view is that new spacetime and new particles which were produced, were causally disconnected from their near by space chunks and particles, but that is impossible in nature [and it kills the cause of Big Bang]. All particles in the universe (including the Everettian alternatives - because single observers cannot experience all possible outcomes) [all particles in the universe] are causally connected mostly via intermediaries and mostly with partial entanglement (few particles are maximally entangled; we should also mention the probabilistic entanglement). For a human observer, even if causality breaking is prohibited in the universe (because all particles ARE and MAKE the universe; mostly via intermediary partial entanglements AND THAT CONNECTOME EXACTLY AND ONLY is the universe)... but for an observational scientist, we can say that [for practical reasons of measurement] causality breaking does exist. The possibility ultra-high energy particles originate from causality breaking sounds deeply stupid for people who don't study what causality in physics is (and what the universe is as a whole, even afar our Hubble volume and our bigger observable portion of the universe [the size of the universe is Everettianly infinite; it is an infinity of alternatives that exponentially increase in number by distance].).

\_\_\_\_

The claim that causality breaking might cause ultra-high energy particles to an observer doesn't sound silly at all for causality scientists (physicists who focus on the study of causality as defined in physics).
\_\_\_\_\_

Big bang will come again, because the universe acceleratingly expands. Actually the quantum decoherence of the wave function of our universe follows a function and it's not stable through time (thus claiming that acceleratingly expands is wrong; it expands with an increasing pace of acceleration but NOWADAYS - in the afar past it had a different behavior... thus we must improve the "function of the wavefunctional quantum decoherence observed by a observer [which is not the full universe, thus cannot experience all its probable evolutions [this is important for other reasons also... do some Everettian subevolutions die off and generate dark matter/extra gravity/boosted wavefunctional evolution towards a superordinate Everettian alternative that didn't die off but killed some subordinate Everettian alternative evolutions that lead ether to dead ends, or to substantiality mergers = different subevolutions leading to the same high-order outcome, but because energy cannot die off, it is interpreted as boosted gravity/dark matter]]).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

I don't know everything, but I know that we must test more theories, and record more observational data.

\_\_\_\_

The universe will re-explode in the afar future as the next big bang (because it expands with an increasing acceleration according to a formula we must create, deeming as a give the flatness of the universe and only balancing and evolving the values of field energy and spatiotemporal expansion). In the grand-scale the flatness of the universe is a given = a part of what it means to be a universe. If we treat the flatness of the universe as a secondary result able to change, we will create a false formula of no use.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Some scientists CORRECTLY argue that even before the next big bang (non-Penrosean, because Roger Penrose kills entropy with his cyclic universe; YES THE UNIVERSE IS CYCLIC, BUT IT IS NON-PENROSEAN... we need a different mechanism to create homogeneity and isotropy... one option is the two-staged big bang... a weak big bang which forms an omniblackhole [all the universe becomes a black hole] which of course rebounds and explodes as the second phase violent big bang (because there is no possible degenerate state than the black hole degenerate state, and if spacetime is compressed more it explodes; the black hole CAN BECOME LARGER OR VOMIT SPACETIME PARTICLES VIA ITS JETS AND CORONA but the omniblackhole [all the universe being a black hole] can only big bang (big bang here used as a verb).

\_\_\_\_\_\_

Some physicists CORRECTLY say that due to quantum decoherence of the local substantiality (which is NOT all the Everettian alternatives of the universe; observers have partial experience of substantiality)... before the next big bang happens particles will find enough energy from causality breaking itself (actually quantum decoherence as interpreted by an observer inside the universe [and that observer is not all the universe to have access to all its subevolutions... we do not know if some subevolutions die off and are interpreted by observers as dark matter = extra gravity]). Before the next big bang, discausality particles appering from nowhere but actually originating from the overall wave function of the universe, being A SPATIOTEMPORAL NOISE DUE TO CAUSAL FRAGMENTATION AMONGST OBSERVERS (actually causal fragmentation is impossible, but we are observers; we are NOT the universe to have access to all its alternative subevolutions. Causal fragmentations are impossible and they are observational interpretations of a partial wavefunctional experiencing. We could decrypt the phenomenological causal fragmentations if we knew the missing solutions of the wavefunction of the universe [if we were the overall universe and not mere observers, we would be able to make the appropriate quantum decrypting rotations, and the apparent causal fragmentations would be revealed to be ENCRYPTED entanglements; BECAUSE EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS IN THE UNIVERSE IS AN ENTANGLEMENT CONNECTOME but we are mere observers in the universe; we don't have the full picture).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Our non-Penrosean cyclic universe will explode as big bang infinite times. Before each big bang, particles appearing from nothing = APPARENT OBSERVATIONAL CAUSAL FRAGMENTATIONS OF LOCAL REGIONS OF THE UNIVERSE. There are equivalent ways to express the phenomenon like big rip, but the standard big rip theory doesn't include all the subtleties.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

BIG BANG = NEW PARTICLES APPEARING FROM NOTHING according to an observer who is not the whole universe and cannot decrypt (perform quantum rotations by using data from other worlds) that they are actually manyworldedly/Everettianly entangled (with the alternative evolutions of the universe, which all as a whole are the "overall universe").

## comment 1:

The Professor mentioned the *OMG particle.* We should examine all alternatives. OK. I know. Big bang is not an important field of study; the reason we exist. I speak about the deep causality of the cyclic big bangs. MIT has good texts on the pre-Big-Bang state and about its prerequisites... but more work is needed.

## comment 2:

If quantum noise from the quantum decoherece of afar regions existed, some claim that it would produce few very-high energy particles everywhere (including very close to us); but that is wrong because here on Earth we interact with our surroundings, and Earth's particles vibrate, we are bombarded with radiation, etc (we allow some Everettian/manyworlded vagueness to exist, but we and our environment of many particles restrict the Everettian evoltion and it cannot grow strong enough = it cannot include a number of alternatives so great that it will PROBABILISTICALLY include more high energy alternative particles, some of which might be energetic enough to tunnel from the overall wavefunction of the universe to our sub-reality [by creating statistical shadows to the other Everettian versions of the universe... (Is dark matter a statistical shadow = a microstate merger phenomenon?)). Things on the Earth are very coherent and close to allow for statistical alternatives huge amouts of unused wavefunctional Everettian (of alternative realities) energy. Thus our problem still remains the afar space. Thus NO. The densely packed Earth is NOT the origin of high-energy Everettian alternative field oscillations (which some due to INTERPRETATIONAL BY AN OBSERVER WHO IS NOT THE OVERALL UNIVERSE). Alternative realities exist everywhere (we do not collapse are particles with high energy around us; atoms exist in a probabilistic halo which is NOT a point, if we don't hit them very hard). Everettan alternatives exist everywhere (we kill them if we cause strong collapses; partial collapses of wave functions limit the alternative outcomes but do NOT make it one) but in close regions on Earth, they don't have the opportunity to develop a high-energy potential (these phenomenal are probabilistic; something maximally weird [but not magic/some things cannot happen] might happen once; statistics matters).

## comment 3:

Were Hugh Everett III and his Everettism/manyworldness trivial? If you can prove the magical claim that your observation is the only possible outcome of the overall universe the Hugh Everett III was a trivial person. Otherwise quantum mechanics is correct (and the Everettian view without magical extras that are not mathematical).

By unmathematically rejecting Everettism/manyworldness/the theory of many worlds, we harm the quantum foundations and probability theory itself (we cannot truly harm it... we can simply make mistakes).