Κυκλική κοσμογονία μεγάλων εκρήξεων δύο σταδίων / two-phased-big-bang cyclic cosmology

## Maximal degeneracy threshold of spacetime itself

The maximal possible mass–energy (energy in the maximal order of degeneracy) density per particular volume, is following the black hole formulas; and that's a universal limitation of mass–energy compression which cannot be violated. The nowadays theory of inflation is wrong. Imagine the beginning of our universe, as an omniblackhole = an infinite black hole, which rebound on the maximal degeneracy threshold of spacetime, which is described by the black hole formulas.

(This is not the full answer on the causality of the Big Bang. One theory is the two staged Big Bang (stage 1: spacetime expands superluminally, but local superluminal motion is impossible in the universe, but spacetime workarounds the problem and uses quantum tunnel[l]ing to expand superluminally at each locality and not merely relativistically [local superluminal motion is only allowed via quantum tunneling; some relativistically afar objects always move superluminally to each other]; but superluminality or -rity = superluminal motion is mostly interpretational, thus it's not practically allowed. When enough energy is created, the hole universe collapses to form a black hole, following the formulas of the black hole, thus not of infinite density. The universe compresses and becomes particle-like (the decay of the omniblackhole creates the homogeneous and isotropic energy distribution of the universe; matter prevails over antimatter not because almost equal amounts of matter and antimatter are created, but because according to Everettism, each wavefunctional collapse is one out of the many alternatives; all the alternative wavefunctional collapses as a group are not biased, but each unique Everettian evolution of the wave function is biased [here I'm wrong; I criticise me because I want to know how the universe works; I don't care about mere ideas]). When the compressed spacetime reaches the maximal degeneracy threshold of spacetime according to the black hole formulas, it bounces and now 2. it Big-Bangs in a homogeneous and isotropic manner (well almost).)

## Two-phased-big-bang cyclic cosmology (big rip-expand-collapse-bounce theory)

The big rip-expand-collapse-bounce theory

Universes (similar to ours and ours itself) expand superluminally at the edges of their infinite Hubble volumes, and when they become old enough these Hubble volumes become pointwise due to the increasingly accelerating expansion of spacetime (some physicists suggested the "early phase transition cyclic big bang" due to the exceedance of a natural field threshold. Big bangs (cyclic ones are uncapitalised) are omnipointwise superluminal events; all the infinite points in spacetime expand superluminally when examined one by one; on the other hand Hubble volumes exhibit superluminal expansion at their surfaces when we relativistically compare different points and not single points in spacetime. The Big Bang didn't start from a point, but from a maximally dense spacetime. The phase transition cyclic big bangs doesn't reach maximally degenerate density, thus some physicists suggested that the universe doesn't continue to expand when it reaches the next big bang state, but instead it collapses to reach a maximally degenerate black hole (the whole universe), so degenerate that it breaches the maximally degeneracy level of spacetime and reexplodes; this is the maximal degeneracy threshold exceedance cyclic big bangs cosmology). This one "big rip & entropic [with newly created particles and spacetime] big bounce [in a single theory: big rip-expand-collapse-bounce]" theory (it's by no means the simple big bounce, and by no means the sole mixed theory; we should give ISO numbers to different theories and test them one by one. Some people mock these theories but they personally offer no alternative. We should work hard, test theories and make corrections. Also we should be open to other universities without to care about Nobel Hindrance and Nobel Price but we should solely care about knowledge expansion.

That particular theory resolves the homogeneity and isotropy conundrum; it doesn't resolve in itself the matter dominance (that has a deeper cause based on quantum field symmetries).

Is that theory correct? When spacetime expands superluminally pointwise (with endorelativistic reference to single points and not with reference to relativistic comparisons between different points), it's harder and harder for dark energy (quantum decoherence of the wave function of the universe which introduces noise which is interpreted = substantialised as newly formed spacetime and particles) to generate pure spacetime. The quantum fields which comprise spacetime, become so energetic that all of them reach the threshold of particle substantiality; but maximally dense particles cannot be expressed in stable form and specific identity. Thus a strong force maximally degenerate chromodynamic fluid is what can exist, but it isn't maximally degenerate, and if it becomes heavy enough (we have to mathematically test the theory) it can reverse the pointwise superluminal expansion of the universe and turn it into an ever-shrinking omniblackhole (everything in the universe being a black hole). The omniblackhole having no external spacetime it shrinks until it reaches the maximal degeneracy threshold of spacetime and bounces back now causing a homogeneous and isotropic big bang (the first omnisuperluminal pointwise expansion wasn't energetic enough to keep going according to that theory).

Most probably this theory is wrong, but we should give ISO names to theory variants and test them all. Then we should introduce the best data to artificial neural networks and evolve in many generations better theories. Some astrophysicists and computer scientists do that already; it's a basic idea, not a rare idea, and basic ideas reappear without the need to be known.

We should play with the parameters and use artificial neural networks and other programs to test what theory works better.

### comment 1:

two-phased-big-bang cyclic cosmology

A double staged cyclic big bang theory (infinite two-staged big bangs theory). It's by no means the sole bistage theory.

### comment 2:

I'm not God, and there isn't any. I don't know everything. But we should understand how the universe works. There are more things we can do working on that.

# μεγάλη έκρηξη δύο σταδίων κυκλικής κοσμογονίας

## non-Penrosean two staged big bang cosmology (it is just a theory, not the sole theory)

The expansion of universe accelerates, and each Hubble volume will either become pointwise or an earlier phase transition will cause the big bang.

In the particular two-staged big bang cyclic cosmology I examine (many alternatives exist) the initial big bang (causal fragmentation of spacetime and particle production) is weak, thus all the newly created particles gradually cause the expansion to stop and reverse into an omniuniversal black hole collapse. The hole universe becomes a black hole without hair, and there is no outside; everything in the universe is the universal black hole; thus it has only one option, to collapse even more by violating the laws of physics, but that is impossible. There is a threshold of maximal degeneracy in spacetime; the black hole degeneracy limit. Thus the universal black hole bounces back, but now with enormous speed able to meet the big bang criteria.

The omniuniversal black hole can explain the homogeneity and isotropy = no hair of the universe, also that nearly ideal big bang doesn't meet the conditions for the creation of small black holes (which in any case are impossible because they aren't heavy enough to create an eternal tunnelling (out–in) self-correction loop of their hair (quantum decoherence exists, but physical black holes are heavy enough to reswallow what they vomit, like a hungry dog which eats its poo).

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

Why non-Penrosean? Because Roger Penrose's cyclic cosmology is magical = antientropic.