Είναι εφικτό το ταξίδι σε συγκεκριμένο παρελθόν; / Is time-travel to a particular past possible?

## Is time-travel to a particular past possible? (text 1)

(in American English)

(Time isn't a fundamental quantum ontology. If you ask questions that imprison you, you will never understand how the universe results. It's more important to ask unbiased questions than providing answers to fallacies.)

Superluminal distancing of objects is a constant attribute of spacetime on the surface of Hubble volumes; but during the Big Bang all Hubble volumes were points. During the Big Bang the superluminal expansion was local, concerning nearby distances. Physical physics is the non-idealized physics of the real world.

A huge question in physical physics is what happens during local superluminal motion (in erroneous and idealized biased pseudophysics superluminal motion moves objects to their pasts; but that's a multiple misconception because:

1. in physical [natural/true] physics all objects are moving at the speed of light, and they separate their speed into external motion and internal time flow; during the Big Bang spacetime was expanding superluminally even at the local level; local superluminal motion is prohibited in physical physics (the physical physics is the ontophysics = what actually happens in the universe and not human unfactual fallacies) and the extra energy is used for quantum tunneling (quantum tunneling exists in factual and physical physics); thus during the Big Bang, the local superluminal motion couldn't be expressed (local superluminal motion is absolutely impossible in nature) and the extra energy was used for quantum tunneling. Quantum tunneling maintains the initial quantum information, but that doesn't stop later local interactions; and practically the information becomes irretrievable in a real world Big Bang. The overall universal information tunneled randomly, and that stir can explain the homogeneity and isotropy of the universe. And what about our nowadays universal period? Nowadays regions at diametrically opposite Hubble volume regions superluminally recede from one another. Why that is permitted? The universe doesn't like to be torn apart, and it fills its gaps with newly formed arbitrary field oscillations. Why dark energy exists? It exists because it is impossible to have a non entropic universal volume, because the universe is tautological to its fields and its phenomena; but the phenomena within the universe are impossible to be expressed in a flat universe because the Lagrangian transformations of the same phenomena from different observers are incompatible (they don’t match exactly) and the universe always tries to make them compatible by creating more spacetime (arbitrary field oscillations).

Universe means "flat spacetime" of very large order of magnitude. The flatness of the universe is part of its ontoaxiomatical foundations and not a secondary result.

The Hubble function is not a constant. The flatness of the universe is a permanent ontological given; but dark matter and dark energy vary. We need a mathematical definition of the local universe. We need to evolve a non-Penrosean cyclic universe formula which will include the givens (like the flatness of the universe) and the universal constituents which change (dark matter and dark energy) (energy should be constant in a cyclic local universe, but its definition is very tricky because it's not based on a single Hubble volume but also on its infinite overlapping Hubble volumes which create a Hubble volume field which contributes less and less to the ontological definition of the central region the further we distance from its central region).

The percentage of energy within a local universe (local universe means Hubble volume with infinite overlapping Hubble volumes, but the more we recede from the central observer who defines the arbitrary local universe, the less they [the Hubble volumes which are further and further] contribute to the ontological description of that particular local universe) is stable; thus during the Big Bang the local universes were pointwise Hubble volumes [with their Hubble haze = infinite overlapping Hubble volumes which contribute less and less to the ontological description of the particular local universe the further they are from the central point/observer], and nowadays the local universes are huge; but their energy is constant.

2. Many (but not all) physicists confuse periodical quantum oscillations [timecrystals for example] (in individual particles and systems of particles) with a return to the past which involves too many particles and too much spacetime. Spacetime ontologically cannot stay the same and in order it corrects its Lagrangian transformations (when many frames of reference are compared) it permanently generates more of itself as newly formed arbitrary field oscillations. Thus claiming that a specific past is ontologically accessible requires the person who makes that huge mistake doesn't understand at all that the substantiality of the cosmos is based on quantum ontology = quantum field theory; and the words past, present and future are relative and not ontologically fundamental.

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

A very important question is: "Why did the locally superluminal Big Bang era ended?" [the spatiotemporal expansion never ends]

Answer: The Big Bang was an omnilocal/omnipointwise (it included all universal localities/points) superluminal expansion event (that's the old erroneous definition).

But local superluminal motion is prohibited.

Thus Big Bang was an omnilocal/omnipointwise quantum tunneling stirring (because quantum tunneling is possible in nature, but local superluminal motion isn't), but according to quantum field theory there is a limit to the maximal tunneling distance (it is similar to the hydrostatic equilibrium of stars hot gas outward pressure vs gravity) because if it gets very great (if it passes a threshold), the afar tunneling of small spatiotemporal quanta = particles, doesn't contribute to their specific local universe (its not an actual threshold, but these particles are tunneled afar from their Hubble volume haze [Hubble volume + near overlapping Hubble volumes]).

Thus the Big Bang lost momentum by reaching its maximal possible limit within its local universe-strain substantiality. (We don't know if quantum tunneling itself [the quantum tunneling of chromodynamic fluid] has an intrinsic limit of its own [we have to search it using quantum field theory]; it seems not. During the Big Bang what was tunneled was chromodynamic [strong force] fluid (or the erroneously called unified energy field... but it misbehaves, thus it's not a single field; because the fields in physics aren't fundamental; they result from a deeper ontology we don't know yet, thus the fields in nature are infinite, but only few of them are realizable, because they are restricted by the overall conditions in spacetime [some fundamental fields = fundamental forces = spatiotemporal behavior patterns, can never be expressed within the phenomenological range of the universe, and others can only contribute as noise to the phenomena]).

...

(My ideas are most probably wrong, but at least I try.)

Thus the Big Bang lost too much energy due to exocausal tunneling = it tunneled to much spacetime and energy afar from the local universe; then the Big Bang stalled totally [it momentarily became immobile] and gravity degenerately compressed the remaining energy and matter into an omniblackhole (everything was a blackhole; only its degenerate core of maximal degeneracy existed without any space for the other components of the regular black holes). There is a limit to spatiotemporal degeneracy = the maximally possible degenerate pressure of spacetime; we know it because black holes have to grow bigger when they consume matter because they cannot limitlessly compress spacetime (we don't have the formula of maximal spatiotemporal degeneracy); also each black hole has a different pace of matter consumption, due to iertia, according to its size, thus faster consumption than the consumption pace limit causes the extra mass-energy to be ejected by the astrophysical jets (we don't have the formula of the inertial threshold of black hole consumption pace). Thus the omniblackhole will have to explode, because it has no outside to eject the extra mass-energy. Then the second face of the Big Bang starts and continued as mainstream physics defines.

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

Why did the Big Bang exploded? According to the non-Penrosean cyclic universe hypothesis, the universe always expands according to the Hubble formula (which isn't a constant). The increasingly accelerating expansion produces an exploding omnipointwise Hubble volume field.

Roger Penrose believes in the supernatural = magic = antientropy (see also: The microtubular crime of Roger Penrose against neuroscience) (he's a great mathematician but some of his views deeply harmed science).

The universe ever expands in an entropic manner. It doesn't revert to a specific size. The local universe (the observer's Hubble volume and surrounding but fading-out Hubble volume field [the Hubble volume field is comprised of overlapping Hubble volumes and it's infinite, but it contributes less and less the further we recede from the central observer who defines it].

The local universe reverts to a specific size per universal era; but: 1. the overall universe isn't merely the local universe, 2. the local universe loses matter-energy towards the afar exolocal universe (except during the omniblackhole era; but that idea of mine is most probably wrong).

## Why do we live in a matter dominated universe?

I don't agree with the nowadays standard view that nearly equal amounts of matter and antimatter were created and that matter prevailed by a small margin.

If the universe was or were (we don't know) an omniblackhole, it would have been a maximally degenerate chromodynamic [strong force] fluid (or something more extreme we don't know yet). That fluid would necessarily explode (second Big Bang phase) via rebounding on the maximally degenerate state of spacetime. Its decay products per local universe are biased.

THE DECAY PRODUCTS OF THE MAXIMALLY DEGENERATE STATE OF SPACETIME OF THE OMNIBLACKHOLE ARE BIASED PER PARTICULAR LOCAL UNIVERSE, AND UNBIASED WHEN A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF DIFFERENT LOCAL UNIVERSES ARE EXAMINED.

We only live in one local universe. We can only simulate multiple omniblackhole decays. Each universe-strain is biased, but the overall Everettian universe is ... actually still biased in different ways; because according to Leonard Susskind who is correct on that, symmetries in nature are approximate and/or interpretational.

# a correction:

## Reaching faster the omniblackhole state (theoretical improvement)

(I am an Everettian creature trying to improve myself. In this text I try to deviate slightly to make corrections [I still have mistakes though].)

During the Big Bang the Hubble volumes/'causality horizons' were points, but each Planckian spatiotemporal region was connected to its nearby Plankian regions; thus always the local universe holds as one whole, EVEN during the Big Bang (or cyclic big bangs). The local universe is a Hubble volume and its nearby Hubble volumes which ontologically belong in the same universe-strain because they are overlapping (the more remote a Hubble volume is from a central observer of a different Hubble volume, the less it contributes to the ontology [see: renormalization group] of her universe-stain).

I wrote correctly that local superluminal motion is prohibited (an impossibility), and the extra energy is used for quantum tunneling energy to afar regions. All these tunneling spatiotemporal points create a hyper-Hubble-volume with each point being a Hubble volume = superluminal sphere = causal horizon. The "Hubble volume field" though is not as causally coherent as a single constituent Hubble volumes, thus part of the Big-Bang-beginnings tunneling energy is lost to regions causally disconnected from its origin (all tunnelings happen outside the point-sized Hubble volumes but at least some land on nearby regions; those who land in afar regions become almost ontologically disconnected because they interact to their afar region thus the complete entanglement becomes ever more partial). But quantum tunneling doesn't only happen towards external regions from a locality we study; incoming tunneling energy keeps coming in the same pace; that would create a perfectly homogeneous and isotropic state of spacetime.

That maximal energy would cause an omniblackhole.

(Now the omniblackhole theory remains the same. In this text I rejected the claim that energy tunnels out from the Hubble volume field, because it also comes in. I kept the old text because some might say "but afar ontologies might deviate; and the only deviation from maximal energy is lower... but I don't personally agree with that [even though I wrote a text promoting that fallacy earlier].)

## local superluminarity is impossible (succinctly)

The universe is homogeneous and isotropic because of its beginnings. Superluminal motion is only relativistically permitted for distant objects. Local superluminal motion is an impossibility/it is prohibited in nature. The Big Bang was a superluminal expansion of spacetime, but without local superluminal motion; the extra energy was causing quantum tunnelings. That process stirred enough the universe. At the beginning of the Big Bang the whole universe was a chromodynamic/strong force fluid.