The Circumfluo Cosmological Theory
And so, I have decided to write an alternative to a Big Bang model because I have been pressed on ''personal idea's'' lately without being properly prepared. I have now sat down and been able to write one up.
''Circumfluo'' is latin and it means to ''flow round''. What is flowing round? I will get to this soon, but first of all, why do I not like Big Bang? The main reasons are obvious: there is a serious form of a singularity in the beginning of existence - it is true however Hawking uses quantum mechanics to rid the singularity but he is left with the problem of how to unify GR at times less than the Planck Time. As has been noted in this forum recently I did notice a circular arguement made by Hawking, a kind of chicken-egg scenario; I also feel that GR should be trusted - that we should not ignore a singularity if it appears. The fact however big bang arose with a singularity there is the problem of where it came from and why it expanded. I believe the question of why the singularity first expanded is not fully understood but I attempt to answer this, as I have in my thread next door. But my biggest problem to date with BB is the question of, ''what happened before it?'' And perhaps the crux of the problem, the question of cause and effect. Did the universe really appear, without any prior cause? I don't think it did, but BB would love to have you believe this and I am simply not ready for this.
What if there was no singularity in the sense of an infinitely concentrated point of energy density? There is a way out of this... It's pretty technical but could be allowable according to the science of quantum mechanics and even relativity theories. To do this however, we need to understand what it means for a universe to be in a Ground State and what it means for a universe to be in an Excited State. Normally, a ground state system will arrange it's constituents, (for a quick instance, an atom) which consists of electrons, protons and nuetrons to the lowest energy state possible. A Ground state system effectively stores as much energy as it can. An excited state system/atom however, is something more exotic - it will release energy after a period of time through a tremendous burst of gamma radiation.
But we are talking about a universe here, surely atoms are bad examples?
Actually they are brilliant examples and can be effectively used to describe universes, because, in the beginning, this very universe has a structure that was very similar to what we might call an atom today. This view, the view of thinking of the universe like an atom has a special name, called quantum cosmology. Let's call this the primordial atom - our universe, the primordial atom then could have began with either two unique energy states - those being an excited state or a ground state.  If our universe arose in a ground state, then it cannot spill out energy. This is the uninteresting case. If it has began in a ground state, it would have had a structure similar to a black hole. Now, if it had began as a singularity, then this is my interesing case and the case we are going to deal with today. If our universe began in an excited phase, then it would have had began as a singularity.
Now, before I continue, I want to cover a small topic the now concerning the many worlds hypothesis. I don't agree with the parallel universe model name for reasons which will be discussed very soon.
Unless energy from the outside had entered the ground state hypothetical universe, then effectively it would never quantum leap - this much has been established. One thing to remember however, that any energy which has flowed in from the outside (whatever that system might be) would have to be exactly the energy needed to excite the universe to the first excited state  and yet again, any energy flowing in, the exact kind of energy would flow out of it if it did not have this exact value. Our journey begins in a primordial universe - actually one of many universes which would be born, but they wll never exist side-by-side simultaneously. Hopefully now you will come to understand why the name, ''Parallel Universes'' is actually a bad choice of a name in this theory?
This primordial universe, the beginning universe is caught up in a massive Curved Spacelike Loop with a finite amount of universes. universes would suffice this theory (an estimate calculated by Bryce de Witt) by how many universes a theory could have instead of the alternative infinite number we often here about in the halls of Parallel Universe enthusiasts. This excited state universe will eventually spill its energy, and this energy will quantum leap into a new configuration, but this configuration is not any old configuration - the energy and information actually ''tunnels'' into a new universe which is just beginning. It is beginning because this energy has just tunnelled into a very small confined point. What causes this point to expand will be explained later. But for now, we should keep in mind that this energy is just the correct kind of energy and information which will make this newly born universe an excited state phenomenea.
Inexorably, we must infer that this is then an excited state of information that is shared throughout each universe - the rate at which it gives up it's energy may vary only by a small quantum difference - indeed, given enough of these differences, you will eventually come to universes where they may only exist for short periods and give up their energies very quickly in an abundant rush. Just like what we would expect from a Parallel Universe model, no two universes can ever be quite the same and the reason why is because that information is stored in the wave function - the wave function would be this ''information'' I speak about, coexisting alongside the energy. Again, this continues until the very last universe gives up it's energy and then returns back to the universe it once began in. Reality then truely is destined to repeat itself.
And so, as each branch effectively gives up its energy, this energy will be transported via tunnelling into a new universe. The wave function is not spread over a single universe alone, but there is a wave function which is ''continued'' into the new branch and contains all the relevant dynamics of the previous branch. This way, we can say that information is never truely lost. And if this wave function acts like a blueprint to how a universe can arise, then it explains why certain energy conditions very early on in any universes history had not appeared side-by-side smeared by chance and probability - instead, we have a type of ''universal DNA'' which passes on information and tells each universe how to appear. Indeed, if this did not happen, then there would be a possibility that a universe could recieve this energy from a branch that is just closing down and arrange this energy in such a way that it would retain the use of the energy - a ground state universe to be exact.
What causes the acceleration of distant galaxies?
I could believe that spacetime is expanding - I have afterall been able to solve the cause and effect problem of BB, this was one of the biggest things which troubled me.
Now, I know that I have said in the past that maybe it is just objects moving around in the universe which causes the impression of expansion, but my problem is not with expansion. I can deal with that and I even have an answer for the accelerated expansion we observe today in the most farout reaches of the observable universe and it all comes back down to energy conditions.
So first, what causes the expansion in the first place?
Well my theory next door, backed up with some math explains that in the very beginning of time, energy seems to have been stacked up infinitely - squeezed into a very small point. Normally, Hawking would invoke quantum mechanics and dictate that this singularity could not exist. I actually embraced the violation of the uncertainty principle and used it to explain why space began appearing between matter. If you want a more indepth look into this theory, you should go to that theory and read up about it. But now comes the question, what is causing the accelerated expansion? Well, it is possible that the universe is now accelerating faster than light because the universe is effectively using up more and more energy - the energy is not conserved. This idea is backed up by Michio Kaku who first postulated this in a TV program (which name I do not recall). But I am effectively saying that the accelerated expansion is in fact a clue that our universe was born in an excited energy phase. This tantalizing clue would suggest that at some point our universe will indeed quantum leap into a new configuration, and if my theory is true, it will be the birth of a new universe that is also just beginning in an excited state energy phase.
The Universe does not Conserve Energy
I know I said there would be no math, but I feel confident enough to try and prove that energy will not be conserved in this universe and there are some clues in which this could be approached mathematically or atleast justified in a way.
There is something in physics and cosmology, called the ''Time Problem''  - when you quantize the Einstein Field Equations, you get back what is called the Wheeler de Witt equation. The Hamiltonian is supposed to describe the energy of the universe - It's wave function is global and the equation takes this form:
Usually for an energy equation like this, it would take the form of a Schrodinger energy equation - however, the right hand side has a vanishing time derivative and this has led to the famous interepretation that we are living in a timeless universe. (See references for reading material on this subject).
There could be something more sinister to realize perhaps, that maybe the universe is not a conserved case of energy. This statement however just seems to hard to believe ... or does it? The universe is now receeding faster than light which seems to indicate that our universe is using energy at a faster rate. In doing so, it might be conjectured that on the crux of things, the universe is not conserving energy like a ground state atom and thus will quantum leap sometime in the future. Odd to think of a universe quantum leaping, but this has been the literature in quantum cosmology.
Usually when we talk about a system not conserving it's energy, we talk about the system not having a symmetry. A symmetry would let a langrangian density be . That is a conserved energy from symmetry, but if you add something into the equation that break's this symmetry then you no longer have a conserved quantity. So maybe, just maybe Noether's Theorem is not applicable to the universe because it does not retain the symmetry allowed to express the system as a conserved quantity.
So, what is a Langrangian Density?
We may have a Langrangian
This would be the canonical momentum in respect to . An example of breaking the symmetry, is if you had some potential term in there, and usually a simply potential may have the form
Interested in the conservation, a simple Noether Theorem would include a transformation with a small parameter, or perturbation. A conserved solution would be
The way this transforms is
The epsilon dissapears (it is such a small quantity) and you are left with a conserved quantity
If it was a field momentum, then is replaced with and the momentum is replaced with yielding
where C is some constant.
Perhaps the main point is that, to have a conserved quantity you require time to translate your quantity correctly. Now, if the universe is timeless, how can the universe have a defined energy? See, time and energy are conjugates of each other in Noether's theorem and in principle if we had the appearance of time in the cosmological approach, we would be theoretically able to describe the universe with a defined and conserved energy. But since our models to date tell us that time vanishes on a global scale, this conservation cannot exist and so this is a justification in itself that we live in an excited state energy phased universe that will eventually spill all its energy into a new universe.
We have seen many models brought forward... even ''spectacular models'' Penrose calls it, of the Cyclic Universe theory. Mine is a Cyclic model as well, but it makes use of many universes at different times and can explain a cause and effect mechanism which his theory cannot. We also have singularities but they don't exist long, they might exist on something like the order of the lifetime of a virtual particle. I say this because the Uncertainty Principle is a clue.
My problem has never really been with BB's prediction of a background temperature, accelerated expansion ect. My problem has been lying with the fact we don't know what happened before it and also the question of how a unification can even take into consideration a singular region of spacetime.
 - Actually, if the wave function of the universe (which is just a state vector) has not collapsed in the beginning of existence, then the universe should have arose in any state side-by-side in a smear of possibilities. It is for this reason we must assume that somehow the parameters of this universe at very early times has been designated. The reason for this will be given soon in my theory.
 - Fred Wolf - Parallel Universes 1985
 A few articles here which can be read, timeless WDW-equation feature in all of them -