[keefy (OP)]

Guess this is going in the {probably} wacky part of the forum once written ! This hypothesis was started in the 70’s and I got so excited about the cuteness of it, that I wrote to Stephen Hawking about an aspect of the Universe it required. His assistant , N. Phillips, replied that , yes , the Universe was a maelstrom of couplets, forever creating and destroying each other. Then about 10 years ago, I added a further idea and the Universe seemed more believable. Recently, there seem to be more articles published relating to this hypothesis albeit at an oblique angle, hence I was wanting to see if my idea holds any water . On writing this, it seems an extremely small postulate , but does seem to tackle some of the anomalies of current thinking 
It’s in 3 parts, of which part I is below. I did issue a very small part on here a few years ago just to see if I’d missed anything on current thinking .

The Universe . Now.
As we can see it, with the maelstrom above.

The Universe before it started .
Nothing, no dimensions, energy, time ,nothing.

The Universe as it started .
A couplet formed ,and instead of self destruction, flew apart.

Each part is equal and opposite. It seems easier to say they have equal and opposite gravity . BUT…  also time ….

For one[at least] of these particles , the dimensions of the universe must increase . I postulate that the Universe becomes more than the particle size .

Thus the Universe now has [much?] more space for this mutual creation/destruction . at some point , they fly apart rather than self destruct and now time can start to expand , so T=2 .  It is hard to imagine something coming out of nowhere and no time either to do it in, but surely one pair of particles is a lot less to ask than the entire Universe just coming into existence ?

So The Universe starts to grow. I believe this will be in a minimum of 2 stages.
Initially , there are no constraints on expansion , which there are later, so it will expand very rapidly ,the Inflation stage. In addition , the positive and negative elements are close together so cancelling each other to a large extent. Thus time flow acceleration will be very slow indeed and to an outside observer will greatly increase it’s perceived rate of expansion of the Universe
At some point , one side [ positive or negative] will wrap around the other , creating a giant M+M sweet .
This would now place a gravitational constraint on the universe expansion and would slow it down remarkably . Whether this would start to explain darkmatter/energy I know not, but does seem to be a mechanism here.

At this point :
To an observer outside the universe : the dimensions, energy, time etc, would all be zero, so to them we’re living in a singularity . Apologies if that’s strictly untrue , but a universe of radius zero anyways .

The Universe Now .

We are either in the middle or the edge of the universe . Assuming we are at the edge, then we would be seeing a huge flux of hydrogen towards the annulus . This would have a small but homogenous energy, much as we see in the universe temperature ?

   
Hubble Constant
Light coming from a distant object has a time flow of that object. On meeting an observer, that time flow has to change to that of the observer , hence a red shift proportionate to the time flow differential between the  2 . The current big problem of why is the universe expanding and accelerating, isn’t an issue .

Dark matter/Energy
Whether this hypothesis “creates” too much , but it does create a gravitational constraint at the very least , hopefully negating the reason for requiring this ?

How Old is the Universe
To my mind it seems that physics is based on present local time flow of the observer [ ie humankind],and so we measure the age of the universe based on present  time flow. The age would vary depending on the location of any other observer, of course .

Are we in the positive or negative area of this universe ?
Don’t know, there are arguments for both .

Are we in the outer or inner annulus ?
The outer annulus , so we are in a strip . Why we can’t see towards the centre is presumably due to gravity ?

Why are some parts of the UNiverse much younger than others ?
This was a recent observation where lighter stars have been found where current theory says they shouldn’t be .
    As we are in the outer annulus, then centre is a ‘dense’ soup of charged particles. With time , opposite particles will be produced , some being ejected from the soup , with others being pushed inwards. At some future density  any perturbation will create a gravity hole and the opposite particles will be drawn there , enlarging the initial slight indentation . Fairly quickly , this will ‘gloop’ upwards and outwards towards the outer annulus . [ think of a lava lamp ] . This will create infrequent but young sections of stars with fewer heavier elements than would normally be the case


Anyhow, that’s the basis , short and hopefully, sweet

Keith Darley

[Colin2B]

Anyhow, that’s the basis , short and hopefully, sweet

Keith Darley

We await the next 2 parts. I assume that’s where you cover the idea of quantum time.