<strong></strong>Identification of Source of Energy for Creation of Universe and Prediction of Minimum Possible Length by New Cosmological Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Law of conservation of energy is the most well-established law of modern physics. But, inflationary cosmological model which assumes the universe to be created from a point of singularity has not been able to identify the source of energy for creation of this universe. As per uncertainty principle, a quantum vacuum fluctuation can at most create energy of ~10-8 kg in a Planck time of ~5.4 ×10-44 s whereas total positive energy due to matter/vacuum existing in the universe is more than ~1054 kg. To solve this problem, we have recently published a new cosmological model (Biswaranjan Dikshit, Canadian Journal of Physics, 100, 218-225, [2022]) in which we have mathematically proved that the total energy of the universe can be zero right from the beginning of the universe to till date due to negative gravitational potential energy and thus law of conservation of energy can be satisfied during creation of the universe from nothing. In this article, starting from a simple argument, we explain why net energy of the universe can be zero only in our model, not in standard cosmological model. An interesting fact pointed out in this paper is that the factor ~1062 by which radius of universe has increased from its starting value of ~10-36 m to present value of ~1026 m is same as the factor by which positive energy has increased from Planck energy ~10-8 kg to present value ~1054 kg. This is in agreement with our new model that predicts the positive energy of universe to be proportional to the radius of universe. We also bring out to the notice that zero energy universe is possible only if smallest possible length in nature is, lmin=lp(π/2)1/2 = 2.0×10-35 m. Minimum possible length is important in theory of quantum gravity and string theory.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".