There's no problem with the first, Sky, since it isn't an explanation---it's just an outlining of one of the biggest issues we have: Quantum and Relativity BOTH are incredibly successful for many, many things. But they cannot both be true at the same time in a single universe as they exist---and no one can make them stop murdering each other. [so far].Skyweir wrote:Yet it is an intriguing possibility V ... is the explanation below flawed? If so, how so?
What is the problem with torsion as explained by Poplawski?Any event in the universe occurs as a point in space and time, or spacetime. A massive object such as the Sun distorts or curves spacetime, like a bowling ball sitting on a canvas. The Suns gravitational dent alters the motion of Earth and the other planets orbiting it. The sun's pull of the planets appears to us as the force of gravity.
The second is quantum mechanics, which describes the universe at the smallest scales, such as the level of the atom. However, quantum mechanics and general relativity are currently separate theories; physicists have been striving to combine the two successfully into a single theory of quantum gravity to adequately describe important phenomena, including the behavior of subatomic particles in black holes.Finally, torsion could be the source of dark energy, a mysterious form of energy that permeates all of space and increases the rate of expansion of the universe. Geometry with torsion naturally produces a cosmological constant, a sort of added-on outward force which is the simplest way to explain dark energy. Thus, the observed accelerating expansion of the universe may end up being the strongest evidence for torsion.
Torsion therefore provides a theoretical foundation for a scenario in which the interior of every black hole becomes a new universe.
The problems with Pop/Torsion [from my recent light introductory reading] is that it only solves problems in classical physics that are small and/or "philosophical" problems...while creating a whole bunch of unnecessary complexity for already-solved problems [or even rejection of the answers]. It also doesn't appear to be testable.
AND: it doesn't solve the war of extinction between quantum and relativity.
But that's surface/first impression/generic paraphrase of OPP [you down with OPP? Other peoples positions]
DailyCakes: that's some reading. Yea, I know about the different sizes of infinity, brought it up myself several times. The open question is, are there only two kinds---countable, uncountable---or are there infinitely many sizes of infinity??
On the CMB images: I gathered a bit of info and did some amatuer math...IF we were in a rotating black cosmoverse, it would EVENTUALLY look like those banded ones. BUT time plus state/phase eras plus ongoing internal quantum fluctuations would seem to indicate it wouldn't look like that YET [and not for a very long time.]
Anyway, I'm sure you know inflation also does away with singularities...at least the INITIAL one...but if it also applies to all singularities, that would eliminate the bounce scenario, but might allow the "all black holes..[or at least the big ones]..generate other universes."
.. 
I would have never thought I could understand any equation 
