At its heart, the ideas and thinking that lead to the formulation of the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis centres around the ability to tell a single consistent story. This story must be consistent with all the available evidence and must be able to literally explain everything; after all a cosmological model is a theory of everything.
Like Plato, unshackled, emerging from his cave stumbling into the light blinking and looking down upon virgin fields whose knowledge and wisdom has yet to be tasted by human thought. For the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis gives voice to a higher existence whose invisible magnitude if truly seen would bring any man to his knees; well almost.
In this work, I wish to tell you the current story of the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis as it continually evolves the more I research and develop my ideas. At its core, the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis is a cause and effect argument.
Our universe began because of a massive undefined starlike object whose diameter measured over one billion light years across came to the end of its life and went nova. In a previous work, in defining words, rather than saying “a massive undefined starlike object whose diameter measured over one billion light years across” I called such a hypothetical object a MacLean.
After all, it is custom in astrophysics to name an object after the one who discovered it. That and I was feeling very cheeky spotting the opportunity in history to carve my own name into the scientific story of creation. Anyway what exactly are supposed to do with a theory of everything? Have a bit of laugh while laying out new physics whose applicational use would quickly give us the warp drive. Or actually, the first applicational use is in warping the fabric of spacetime locally within a tokamak fusion reactor in order create an artificial gravity well.
Off course, if you’re really smart, you’d no doubt realised that such an applicational use would allow humanity to live in a zero carbon economy without sacrificing quality of life. In fact, we all get to become explores, pioneers, adventurous as humanity travels into our solar system and beyond; far far beyond. While at the same time preserving the natural beauty of our own planet.
And how does the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis make this possible? Well very simple! By knowing exactly why and how nature and the universe, as a whole, actually ticks then we are able to work with the laws of nature in order to create invention and application. That smartphone in your hand, the computer at your desk, all would not be possible without the work of Richard Feynman and Quantum Field Theory. Such is the power of physics.
So it is from here that we shall begin the tale of the Big Bang Hypernova hypothesis because of the two key pillars upon which the ideas that modern Big Bang cosmology in the realm of particle physics is founded. The first pillar is known as the “baryon asymmetry to the universe” or rather the imbalance between matter and antimatter. The second pillar is considered a fundamental law of physics called Charge-Parity-Time symmetry or simply CPT-symmetry.
To quote wikipedia : “Charge, parity and time reversal symmetry is a fundamental symmetry of physical laws under the simultaneous transformations of charge conjugation (C), parity transformation (P), and time reversal (T). CPT is the only combination of C, P and T that is observed to be an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level. The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with Hermitian Hamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.”
Andrei Sakharov was a Russian nuclear physicist who in 1965 developed his 2D-didactic cosmological model in considering both baryon asymmetry and CPT-symmetry. In this simplified model one dimension is for space and the other is for time. At its centre lies the Big Bang singularity from which two arrows of time emerge each a mirror of the other. Here Sakharov gave the first complete mathematical description of how two universes could emerge from a single event. One universe composed of matter and the other composed of antimatter.
This description is so much more elegant to the currently established view in cosmology that all the matter and antimatter annihilated each other in the very first moment of creation. Well almost everything as a slight imbalance created more matter, one part in a billion, according to the baryon asymmetry explanation.
To be honest, it beggars belief that cosmologists in describing the currently established Big Bang model talk about there being scientific consensus in describing the Big Bang event to within a precision of \(10^{-50}\) seconds after the Big Bang event itself; when all the matter and antimatter was suddenly created and brought into existence. The reasons for this so called consensus comes from particle accelerator experiments conducted by physics at places like the LHC and FermiLab.
But on the other hand mainstream cosmology has been happy to ignore a key principle of particle physics; namely “Sakharov conditions” and the consequences of T-symmetry. So in effect, cosmologists base their statements of experiments done by particle physics while ignoring the consequences of this key principle in particle physics.
One cosmologist, whose work I have only recently become aware of is Jean-Pierre Petit and his development of what is called “The Janus Cosmological Model”. My initial impression upon seeing Jean-Pierre’s work was a huge sigh of relief thinking “Oh thank God I don’t have to do the maths on that one!”.
Let me clarify that statement; in my initial film, at the very end I present two specific papers in order to point towards the mathematics. The first was James Farnes's work regarding the ideas of negative mass and dark matter. The second was Julian Barbour’s "A Gravitational Origin of the Arrows of Time” paper.
Jean-Pierre Petit’s work combines both the ideas of negative mass and CPT-symmetry to build a proper mathematical framework for his cosmological model. And like Jean-Pierre Petit and Andrei Sakharov I myself came to the same independent conclusion about the existence of a parallel universe that is the mirror image to our own.
I came to this conclusion because in the thinking about the Big Bang singularity I looked at how a known physical singularity behaves; namely, a black hole. Matter falling in to a black hole from an accretion disc encounters one of two fates. The first fate is that the matter falls into the black hole never to be seen again. The second fate is that the matter is accelerated sufficiently along the electromagnetic lines of force, coming from the black hole, such that it is ejected from either one of the poles. This ejection of material out leads to the formation of two output astrophysical jets.
We can think of it this way because firstly as Roger Penrose and Steven Hawking showed using Einstein’s equations of General Relativity the Big Bang was in fact a gravitational singularity. Secondly, the pattern of an input accretion disc intersecting the equator of a black hole with perpendicular output jets emerging at the poles is the known and observed behaviour.
The resultant jets being ejected from the black hole’s poles are called astrophysical or relativistic jets and there are two of them. Each jet travels in opposite directions from one another along the axis that is defined by the poles of the black hole. And so, in thinking about the Big Bang singularity having the exact same patten of behaviour gave rise to my independent conclusion. Given that one jet became our universe then there exists a parallel mirror image universe to our own being composed of antimatter emerging from the other jet.
Moreover the fact that the material coming from the input accretion disc can be ejected from either the north or south pole of the Big Bang singularity gives rise to a binary fate. This binary fate determines wither the material becomes matter or antimatter. So straight away we see can a binary cause and effect argument that gives rise and more fundamentally definition as to why matter is matter and antimatter is antimatter.
There was no annihilation of matter and antimatter because the two never met. In fact the material only becomes matter when it is actually ejected from the north pole. And vice versa, the ejected material only becomes antimatter when it is actually ejected from the south pole. The actual material that falls in from the accretion disc could technically be described as photons because the plane of the disc is orthogonal to the direction of the jet. I should note that the choice of poles north and south is completely arbitrary.
Physics, the study of nature, at its core is all about understanding the exact how and why nature works at the deepest level. To re-quote wikipedia regarding CPT-symmetry, “an exact symmetry of nature at the fundamental level”. But in studying the formation of each of the two jets, from the input accretion disc, we can see how and why such a symmetry is actually given form as our universe is born.