Quantum Omni–Synthesis (QOS): Particle Genesis, Fragmentary "Big–Bang" Events, and a CMB Interpreted as Accumulated Ratio–Imbalance Fragments

Quantum Omni–Synthesis (QOS): Particle Genesis, Fragmentary “Big–Bang” Events, and a CMB Interpreted as Accumulated Ratio–Imbalance Fragments Stefalo Acha1 North Carolina A&T State University, Greensboro, NC, USA Email: [email protected]at.edu / [email protected] The Quantum Omni–Synthesis (QOS) framework decomposes all processes into two orthogonal energetic channels: an explosive channel associated with kinetic/electromagnetic excitations and an implosive channel associated with gravitational/binding effects. The implosive channel is parameterized by a dimensionless quantized gravity coupling parameter ς. In QOS, particle birth is an ongoing dynamical matching problem: when explosive and implosive drives are properly balanced, matched proto–states flow to stable particle sectors; when the ratio is improper, outcomes fragment radiatively (explosion–skewed) or collapse into micro–trapped structures (implosion–skewed). We interpret the cosmic microwave background (CMB) not as a one–time relic but as the integrated signal of many explosion–skewed micro–fragment events in the early plasma, with subdominant contributions from macroscopic collapse channels (e.g., neutron–star collapse to black holes). We (i) place ςconsistently within a quark–scale energy ledger (color, kinetic, electromagnetic, gravitational), (ii) derive a minimal cosmological backbone closed by ς(a)as a single effective degree of freedom mapped to wQOS(a),ρQOS(a), and H(a), and (iii) outline an observational handshake with SNe/BAO/CMB. We show how successful builds provide a concrete alternative to many–worlds/string–landscape selection: QOS matching selects realized branches/vacua; failed branches decohere into fragments or evaporate, leaving a small stabilized sector that constitutes observable reality. 2 I. INTRODUCTION Standard cosmology narrates a single–origin “Big Bang” followed by cooling, recombination, and structure formation [5–7]. While empirically successful [10,11], that narrative treats the CMB as a singular echo. QOS reframes the origin story: the CMB emerges as the accumulated background of many micro–fragment events driven by improper ratios between explosive and implosive channels during ongoing particle genesis. In this view, “Big Bang” is not the beginning of the Universe but a coarse–grained description of fragmentary episodes that were abundant when the plasma was dense and interactive. This paper develops a minimal, testable version of that claim. Section II recaps the QOS energetic framework and defines the quantized gravity coupling parameter ς. Section III formalizes successful building blocks of particles as matched states, and contrasts these with explosion– and implosion–skewed failures; it then interprets many– worlds/string landscape language as QOS branch selection [15–17]. Section IV places ςwithin a quark–scale ledger to show consistency with hadron phenomenology [18,19]. Section Vintroduces a minimal cosmology where ς(a)closes the background via wQOS(a), leading to H(a)and observables [8,9]. Section VI introduces a QOS time rectification and coherence scheme that couples the microscopic clock to implosive participation and feeds into CMB visibility and damping [6,8,12–14]. Section VII recasts “Big Bang” as fragmentary micro–processes and includes the implosion– skewed micro–black–hole channel (connected to Hawking radiation) and a macroscopic analog (neutron–star collapse to black holes) [20–24]. Section VIII outlines an observational handshake with SNe/BAO/CMB [25–29]. Conclusions follow. II. QOS ENERGETIC FRAMEWORK A. Orthogonal energetic channels QOS posits two orthogonal channels: •Explosive channel (associated with dark energy): outward/expansive tendency associated with kinetic/electromagnetic and vacuum–excitation–like contributions. •Implosive channel (associated with dark matter): inward/contractive tendency associated with gravitational/binding effects. Their competition determines local dynamics and the fate of proto–states. B. Quantized gravity coupling parameter A dimensionless quantized gravity coupling parameter ςmodulates local implosive participation. In low–curvature environments ς≪1; in dense/high–curvature environments ςcan be enhanced. C. Kinematics: split and modified dispersion For a localized excitation with 3–momentum pand bare rest mass m, the QOS orthogonal split is encoded at the level of an effective dispersion: E2=E2 exp −E2 impl,(1) E2 exp ≡p2c2+m2c4,(2) Eimpl ≡ς mc2.(3) Equations (1)–(3) yield the modified energy–momentum relation E(p;ς) = pp2c2+m2c4(1 −ς2).(4) Physical limit: for p→0,E→mc2√1−ς2; laboratory rest masses are recovered for ς→0in low–curvature environments. A line–by–line derivation, limiting cases, and consistency checks appear in Appendix B. 3 D. Field–theoretic sector (compact recap) A compact scalar sector consistent with prior QOS development uses the stress–energy form T(ψ,ς) µν =1−ς2∇µψ∇νψ−1 2gµν ∇αψ∇αψ−1 2gµν m2ψ2,(5) so that the implosive participation rescales gradient energy while leaving a conventional mass term. The full construction from a Lagrangian density and variation with respect to gµν is given in Appendix C, with remarks on gauge couplings. III. SUCCESSFUL BUILDING BLOCKS OF PARTICLES A. Balance principle and success window Asuccessful build occurs when explosive and implosive drives admit a bounded effective Hamiltonian and a positive spectral gap, ensuring flow to a stable mass eigenstate. Define a region Wsucc in the space of local invariants (ς, K,F), where Kdenotes kinematic invariants and Fgauge/metric invariants, such that trajectories initialized within Wsucc relax to stable particle sectors. Sufficient conditions are collected and proven in Appendix D. Existence conditions (schematic). The following appear as Theorems 1–3 in Appendix D: Boundedness: Heff [ς, K,F]≥ Hmin >−∞,(6) Gap: ∆(ς, K,F)>0,(7) Asymptotic flow: lim t→∞ ρ(t)→ρmass.(8) B. Matching rule to observed quantum numbers Within Wsucc, matched proto–states map to standard representations: •Spin arises from superposition/precession of orthogonal channels under balance (see Sec. VI D for the open-system link). •Color follows from the gauge sector of the QOS Lagrangian restricted to Wsucc. •Electric charge emerges from explosive–channel coupling to electromagnetism under the matching constraint. A constructive map is provided in Appendix Ewith examples. C. Quantum fluctuations and outcomes outside the success window Vacuum fluctuations as seeds of ratio imbalance. In QOS the fate of a proto–state is governed by the explosive/implosive ratio, which we parametrize by the scalar participation ς. Quantum fluctuations of the fields and of ς itself, ς(t, x) = ¯ς(t, x) + δς(t, x), randomly push local microstates in and out of the success window Wsucc. This is the same physical mechanism by which vacuum fluctuations seed curvature/entropy perturbations in the early Universe [38–43]: short-wavelength quantum modes coarse-grain to classical stochastic sources for long-wavelength dynamics. Stochastic/Langevin view and fluctuation–dissipation. At coarse-grained scales one may write a Langevin closure for the local ratio invariant R≡R[ς, K,F], ˙ R(t, x) = −ΓR ∂Φ ∂R+ξR(t, x),ξR(t)ξR(t′)= 2 ΓRΘeff δ(t−t′),(9) where Φis an effective potential encoding the balance principle, ΓRa kinetic coefficient, and Θeff an effective noise temperature. The white-noise limit implements a fluctuation–dissipation relation (FDR) à la Callen–Welton/Kubo [44,45]. Equation (9) makes explicit that quantum fluctuations (through Θeff ) nudge trajectories across the boundary of Wsucc, producing the two observed classes of outcomes. 4 Mapping to the two outcomes. 1. Implosion–skewed (micro trapping). Large negative excursions of R(enhanced implosive participation) increase compactness C= 2GM/(Rc2)toward unity, enabling micro black-hole or near-trapped configurations. This is the same logic by which overdensities sourced by quantum fluctuations can seed primordial black holes (PBHs) [35,36,48]. Subsequent evaporation and thermodynamics follow Hawking/Bekenstein [20–22]. 2. Explosion–skewed (radiative fragments). Positive excursions of Rdrive overshoot into unbound, radiative final states. In the early high–optical–depth plasma, repeated scattering and double-Compton/bremsstrahlung rapidly thermalize such quanta, yielding a near–blackbody background [30–33]. In this sense, the ensemble of explosion-skewed events acts as a fluctuation-driven injection that the medium erases to a blackbody—fully analogous to how stochastic sources are damped by dissipation in FDR systems. Open-system decoherence link. The open-system layer already introduced in Eqs. (27)–(28) (see Sec. VI D) provides a microscopic route from quantum fluctuations to classical outcomes. Treat δς as a slow stochastic parameter: it induces frequency noise and pure dephasing via the dephasing functional Γ(QOS) ϕ(t) = 1 2∂ω ∂ς 2Zdω 2π|e ft(ω)|2Sςς(ω), suppressing off-diagonal coherences and pushing the system toward classical mixture before it selects an implosionor explosion-skewed branch. This is the standard Caldeira–Leggett/Schwinger–Keldysh picture of quantum Brownian motion applied to the QOS balance variable [46,47]. Environmental vs. intrinsic noise. In this work Sςς(ω)is taken to be environmental, sourced by plasma interactions and curvature inhomogeneities; its low-frequency weight decreases as density/temperature increase across the lepton→quark window, leading to suppressed dephasing at the highest densities. An intrinsic (vacuum) component can be added but is subdominant in the regimes considered. Elaboration relative to known frameworks. Conceptually, QOS plays a role similar to stochastic inflation for the coarse-grained fields: short-mode quantum fluctuations random-walk the effective parameters (here, the ratio invariants through ς) and the subsequent dissipative environment (high-opacity plasma) drives them to classical outcomes, with PBH-like trapping on one side and blackbody-bound thermalization on the other [43,49]. The key distinction is that QOS organizes the direction of the fluctuation into orthogonal energetic channels (explosive vs. implosive), making the mapping from sign/magnitude of the fluctuation to outcome especially transparent. IV. QUARK–SCALE ENERGY LEDGER AND BOUNDS ON ς A. Back–of–the–envelope ledger At radii r∼0.8–1.0 fm inside a proton: Ecolor(r)∼σ r, σ ∼ O(GeV/fm),(10) Ekin(r)∼ℏc r,(11) EEM(r)∼αem ℏc r×(charge factor),(12) EG(r)∼ − Gm2 p r(negligible compared to QCD).(13) A QOS implosive bookkeeping contribution per proton is E(p) impl ∼ −ς mpc2. Numerical estimates and the plotted ledger construction are given in Appendix F[18,19]. Connection to compactness: the hadronic compactness proxy is C ∼ 2Gmp/(rc2)∼10−38 at r∼1fm; requiring ςhad ≲Cprotects QCD phenomenology and motivates the conservative band below. B. Placement of ςvarsigma at hadronic radii To preserve hadron phenomenology, one requires |E(p) impl| ≪ QCD scales at fm radii. A conservative window is 10−41 ≲ςhad ≲10−38,(14) 5 FIG. 1. Energy components vs radius inside a proton (illustrative/schematic; axes and parameter values indicated in the figure). The shaded “QOS band” shows the magnitude of the implosive bookkeeping energy |E(p) impl|=ςmpc2for the conservative hadronic window (14). which comfortably sits many orders below color/kinetic energies while remaining conceptually present (Appendix F). In ordinary laboratories, the implied fractional mass shift |∆m/m| ≃ 1 2ς2is utterly negligible; we treat ςas environmentdependent (spurion scalar), consistent with App. I. C. Figure (14). Figure 1 — Proton energy ledger with QOS band The plot compares hadronic energy scales versus radius r: the confining color term Ecolor =σr, the kinetic term Ekin =ℏc/r, and a subdominant electromagnetic term EEM = αemℏc/r. The shaded QOS band visualizes |E(p) impl|=ςmpc2over 10−41 ≲ςhad ≲10−38, appearing nearly flat in rand orders of magnitude below even the EM curve—hence negligible for fm-scale phenomenology. This certifies consistency: ςcan be present (environment-dependent) without disturbing hadron structure, while still allowing cosmological-scale effects via wQOS(a)and H(a). V. MINIMAL COSMOLOGY WITH ς(A) A. Effective equation of state and continuity Close the flat FLRW background with ς(a)as a single effective degree of freedom. Define wQOS(a)≡ −1 + κ ς(a)2,(15) with κ > 0small so late times remain near −1. Energy conservation yields ρQOS(a) = ρQOS(1) exp−3 Za 11 + wQOS(a′)d ln a′=ρQOS(1) exp−3κ Za 1 ς(a′)2d ln a′.(16) 6 A step-by-step derivation of Eqs. (15)–(16) appears in Appendix H[7,8]. B. Friedmann equation and observables Let Ωr0and Ωm0bepresent −−dayradiationandmatterfractions, andΩQOS,0= 1 −Ωm0−Ωr0. Then H2(a) = H2 0Ωr0a−4+ Ωm0a−3+ ΩQOS,0 ρQOS(a) ρQOS(1).(17) Normalization and priors: we impose Ωr0+ Ωm0+ ΩQOS,0= 1 and, unless stated otherwise, hold H0fixed to observational priors. Distances follow from H(a)in the usual way [9]. Given any ς(a)ansatz (e.g., polynomial or spline in ln a), Eqs. (15)–(17) define H(z),DM(z),DL(z), and the expansion history for confrontation with data; explicit integrals and sound horizon expressions are summarized in Appendix H. Data comparisons are outlined in Sec. VIII [10,25–29]. Early-time integral bound: consistency with BBN and the energy budget near matter–radiation equality requires a small integral Rarec aBBN ς2d ln a(see App. M). C. Illustrative ansatz and micro–worked numbers For a concrete handshake, take a two-parameter form ς2(a) = α a +β a2,(α, β) = (2 ×10−3,−8×10−4),(18) with κ= 0.1. Propagating Eqs. (15)–(17) while holding H0,Ωm0fixed yields ∆H Hz=0.5≈0.3% ,∆H Hz=1.0≈0.6%, and corresponding luminosity–distance shifts ∆DL DLz=0.5≈0.2% ,∆DL DLz=1.0≈0.4%, well within current BAO/SNe systematics but testable with joint analyses. (Exact values depend weakly on Ωr0and the chosen prior on H0.) D. Figures Figure 2 — Illustrative H(z)from a sample ς(a)This curve implements ς(a)→wQOS(a) = −1 + κς2→ρQOS(a)→ H(a), yielding an expansion history that is ΛCDM-like at late times but allows controlled deviations where Rς2d ln a accumulates. Mild uplifts of H(z)at intermediate zreflect epochs with slightly less negative wQOS; the size/location are governed by κand the integral of ς2. The result is directly testable with BAO (radial H(z)) and SNe (integrated distances), making it a practical prior for inference. Figure 3 — a(t)vs look-back time from the same H(a)Integrating tL(a) = R1 a da′ a′H(a′)using the Figure 2 H(a)gives a time-domain portrait where steeper segments indicate faster expansion (shorter look-back to reach a given a). Any ς(a)–driven deviation in H(a)has a one-to-one echo here, shifting the chronology accordingly. This view translates expansion features into clocks and, with the QOS factor f= (1 −ς2)γeff , helps interpret phase accrual, dephasing, and visibility-width effects in ordinary time units. VI. QOS TIME RECTIFICATION AND COHERENCE IN THE EARLY UNIVERSE Overview. This section introduces a QOS clock factor fthat rescales microscopic dynamics from the energymerge event (lepton birth) through quark formation and hadronization. When the QOS coupling vanishes, standard cosmology is recovered. The construction provides a quantitative handle on phase evolution, coherence/decoherence, and CMB observables [6,8,12–14]. 7 FIG. 2. Illustrative expansion history H(z)obtained from a sample ς(a)via Eqs. (15)–(17). This is a proof-of-concept curve for how ς(a)maps into observables. A. Definition (QOS time and clock factor) Define the clock factor and the QOS time increment: f(t, x)≡1−ς(t, x)2γeff (t, x),(19) dτQOS =f(t, x) dt. (20) Here ς∈[0,1) controls implosive energetics, and γeff is the kinematic factor implied by the unified Lagrangian (Sec. VI J). In the limit ς→0and γeff →1(local rest frame), one has dτQOS = dt. B. Thermal-history mapping (radiation era) During radiation domination: H(T) = r8πG 3ρrad(T) = r4π3G 45 g(T)T2,(21) dt=−d ln T H(T).(22) The QOS elapsed time between thermal events A→C(e.g., energy-merge to quark onset) is ∆τQOSA→C=ZTC TA f(T) H(T)d ln T=ZTC TA1−ς(T)2γeff (T) H(T)d ln T. (23) As ςgrows near the QCD scale, fdecreases (for γeff ≃1comoving), so the QOS clock τQOS compresses relative to coordinate time t, while the background expansion remains standard when ςis small [6,8]. 8 FIG. 3. Scale factor a(t)vs look–back time computed from the same H(a)used in Fig. 2. Look–back time increases to the right; today is at a= 1. C. Quantum evolution, phase accrual, and decoherence Closed systems (unitary). U(τ) = Texp−i ℏZτ H(τ′) dτ′,(24) U(t) = Texp−i ℏZt H(t′)f(t′) dt′.(25) Instantaneous phase accrual per coordinate time: dϕ dt=E(t) ℏf(t).(26) Open systems (Lindblad). In τQOS and mapped to t: dρ dτ=−i ℏ[H, ρ] + X kLkρL† k−1 2{L† kLk, ρ},(27) dρ dt=f(t)"−i ℏ[H, ρ] + X kLkρL† k−1 2{L† kLk, ρ}#.(28) Thus, frequencies and dissipative rates per unit tare scaled by f(t). If the environment co-moves with τQOS, local physics is unchanged; if referenced to t, effective decoherence/relaxation per unit tare reduced by f. Stochastic clocking from ς-noise. Let ς→ς+δς ⇒f→f+δf. Then ϕ(t) = 1 ℏZt 0 E(t′)f(t′) dt′,(29) f(t) = ¯ f+δf(t),Var ϕ(t)∝Zt 0Zt 0 Cδf (τ1−τ2) dτ1dτ2,(30) with Cδf the autocorrelation of δf, yielding a measurable QOS-driven dephasing channel. 9 D. QOS coherence, decoherence rates, and coherence length State coherence. For a reduced density matrix ρ, define the (dimensionless) coherence between levels i=jas Cij(t)≡ρij(t) pρii(t)ρjj(t).(31) Within the QOS clock (Eqs. (19)–(20)) and open-system map (Eqs. (27)–(28)), a generic pure-dephasing form reads ρij(t) = ρij(0) exp"−Γ(QOS) ϕ(t)−t 2T(QOS) 1(t)−iZt 0 ∆ωij(t′)f(t′) dt′#,(32) where T(QOS) 1is the energy-relaxation time, ∆ωij is the transition frequency (possibly ς-dependent), and the QOS dephasing functional is Γ(QOS) ϕ(t) = Zt 0 f(t′) Γϕ ς(t′),envdt′.(33) Equations (32)–(33) make explicit that all unitary and dissipative rates per unit coordinate time tare scaled by the clock factor fdefined in Eq. (19). In particular, 1 T(QOS) 1(t)=f(t) Γ1 ς(t),env,(34) 1 T(QOS) 2(t)=f(t)Γϕ ς(t),env+1 2Γ1 ς(t),env,(35) so that T(QOS) 2obeys the usual 1/T2= 1/Tϕ+ 1/(2T1)structure with an overall f-weight. Parameter-noise dephasing (from ς-fluctuations). Let ς(t) = ¯ς(t) + δς(t). To leading order, frequency noise δωij(t)≈(∂ωij/∂ς)δς(t)yields Γnoise ϕ(t) = 1 2∂ωij ∂ς 2Zt 0Zt 0 f(t1)f(t2)δς(t1)δς(t2)dt1dt2.(36) Equivalently in the frequency domain, Γnoise ϕ(t) = 1 2∂ωij ∂ς 2Z+∞ −∞ dω 2πe ft(ω)2Sςς(ω),e ft(ω) = Zt 0 f(t′)eiωt′dt′,(37) where Sςς(ω)is the power spectral density (PSD) of δς. For slow ς-noise, Γnoise ϕ(t)∼1 2(∂ωij/∂ς)2Sςς (0) Rt 0f(t′) dt′2. Phenomenological closures. In many environments it is adequate to take Γϕ ς, env=γϕ0+γϕ2ς2,Γ1 ς, env=γ10 +γ12 ς2,(38) with small positive coefficients γϕ2, γ12. Substituting (38) into (34)–(35) yields explicit T(QOS) 1,2(t)for any ς(t)or ς(T) profile. Coherence time and coherence length. Define the QOS coherence time T(QOS) 2as 1 T(QOS) 2 = lim t→∞ 1 thΓ(QOS) ϕ(t) + t 2T(QOS) 1i.(39) The (group-velocity) coherence length follows from the dispersion in Eq. (4): vg(p;ς) = ∂E ∂p =p c2 pp2c2+m2c4(1 −ς2), Lcoh(p;ς) = vgT(QOS) 2.(40) As ςgrows (stronger implosive participation), vgand T(QOS) 2are both modulated, altering Lcoh. 16 Taking P0/[ργ(z0)H(z0)] ≲2×10−5and n=−1gives ∆µ≲1.0×10−5⇒µ≲1.4×10−5, well below FIRAS. A similarly tiny tail at z≲5×104with Rεd ln(1 + z)≲2×10−5yields y≲5×10−6. Hence a QOS fragment scenario with injection predominantly at z≳106comfortably satisfies |µ|and yconstraints with generous margin. Appendix O: Micro–BH Production Rates and Diffuse Background Constraints Let β(M)denote the fraction of horizon patches forming micro–BHs of mass M. The evaporation luminosity ∝M−2implies a comoving injection rate P(z)∼Rβ(M)M−2f(z, M) dM. Bounds on β(M)from diffuse γ-ray background and the CMB are severe for 1014–1017 g; for lighter Mevaporation is earlier/cleaner, for heavier Mlatetime constraints dominate [35,36]. In QOS, β(M)inherits a dependence on the implosion-skewed branch probability Pimpl(ς, K,F), suppressed inside Wsucc. Appendix P: Observable Derivatives and Figure Recipe Derivatives. For E(a)≡H(a)/H0,∂θln E(a) = ΩQOS,0∂θρQOS(a)/ρQOS(1) 2 [Ωr0a−4+Ωm0a−3+ΩQOS,0ρQOS(a)/ρQOS(1)] , with ∂θln ρQOS(a) = −3κRa 1∂θς(a′)2d ln a′. Figure 1 (ledger) recipe. Plot Ecolor(r) = σr;Ekin(r) = ℏc/r;EEM(r) = αemℏc/r (with charge factor); overlay the “QOS band”: [−ςmpc2]for ς∈[10−41,10−38]. Appendix Q: Dimensional Analysis of New Terms Involving ςand κ Quantity Meaning Dimension (SI / natural) ςquantized gravity coupling parameter dimensionless κEoS response coefficient in wQOS =−1 + κς2dimensionless Eimpl =ς mc2implosive bookkeeping energy scale energy T(ψ,ς) µν stress–energy tensor, Eq. (5) energy density ρQOS(a)QOS energy density energy density H(a)Hubble rate inverse time C= 2GM/(Rc2)compactness dimensionless TH=ℏc3/(8πGMkB)Hawking temperature temperature tevap ∼5120πG2M3/(ℏc4)BH evaporation time time All occurrences of ςand κmultiply dimensionless combinations in the EoS and energy split; no hidden scales are introduced. Appendix R: Limits and Causality: ς→0and ς→1− Standard limit. With E(p;ς) = pp2c2+m2c4(1 −ς2), the limit ς→0returns E→pp2c2+m2c4and hence standard kinematics. In cosmology, wQOS → −1and Eqs. (16)–(17) reduce to ΛCDM with ΩQOS,0behaving as a cosmological constant. No ghosts, no superluminality. The group velocity vg=∂E ∂p =pc2 √p2c2+m2c4(1−ς2)≤cfor any 0≤ς < 1. The kinetic prefactor in Eq. (5) is (1 −ς2)>0, excluding ghosts. AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS S. A. conceived the energetic postulate. S. A. derived the field equations and the dispersion relation. S. A. developed the quark-level modeling and the constraint strategy. S. A. wrote the manuscript and prepared all figures. 17 COMPETING INTERESTS The author declares no competing interests. 18 REFERENCES [1] S. Acha, Quantum Omni–Synthesis: A Field–Theoretical Framework with a Quantized Gravity Coupling Parameter,” QOS Manuscript I, 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17179911 (2025). [2] S. Acha, ‘Superposition of Implosive and Explosive Energetics in the Quantum Omni–Synthesis Framework,” QOS Manuscript II, 2025. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17195560 (2025). [3] S. Acha, Quantum Omni–Synthesis as an Effective Field Theory: Phenomenological Completion, Cosmological Perturbations, and Constraints (2025), in preparation. [4] S. Acha, Quantum Omni-Synthesis and the Black Hole Core: Implosive–Explosive Equilibrium as a Resolution to the Singularity Problem (2025), in preparation. [5] P. J. E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology (Princeton, 1993). [6] E. W. Kolb and M. S. Turner, The Early Universe (Addison–Wesley, 1990). [7] S. Weinberg, Cosmology (Oxford, 2008). [8] S. Dodelson, Modern Cosmology (Academic, 2003). [9] D. W. Hogg, Distance measures in cosmology, arXiv:astro-ph/9905116. [10] Planck Collaboration, Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, A&A 641, A6 (2020). [11] G. Hinshaw et al., Nine–year WMAP observations, ApJS 208, 19 (2013). [12] C.-P. Ma and E. Bertschinger, Cosmological perturbation theory in the synchronous and conformal Newtonian gauges, ApJ 455, 7 (1995). [13] W. Hu and N. Sugiyama, Small-scale cosmological perturbations: an analytic approach, ApJ 471, 542 (1996). [14] J. Silk, Cosmic black-body radiation and galaxy formation, ApJ 151, 459 (1968). [15] H. Everett, “Relative state” formulation of quantum mechanics, Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 454 (1957). [16] J. Polchinski, String Theory, Vols. I–II (Cambridge, 1998). [17] L. S. Susskind, The Anthropic Landscape of String Theory, in Universe or Multiverse? (2003). [18] S. Weinberg, The Quantum Theory of Fields, Vol. I (Cambridge, 1995). [19] D. Griffiths, Introduction to Elementary Particles, 2nd ed. (Wiley-VCH, 2008). [20] S. W. Hawking, Black hole explosions?, Nature 248, 30–31 (1974). [21] S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys. 43, 199–220 (1975). [22] J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973). [23] J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, On massive neutron cores, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939). [24] S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars (Wiley, 1983). [25] D. J. Eisenstein et al., Detection of the baryon acoustic peak, ApJ 633, 560 (2005). [26] L. Anderson et al., Clustering of galaxies in BOSS DR11, MNRAS 441, 24–62 (2014). [27] S. Alam et al., Clustering in BOSS DR12, MNRAS 470, 2617–2652 (2017). [28] M. Betoule et al., Joint analysis of SDSS-II and SNLS SNe, A&A 568, A22 (2014). [29] D. M. Scolnic et al., The Pantheon compilation, ApJ 859, 101 (2018). [30] D. J. Fixsen et al., The Cosmic Microwave Background spectrum from COBE/FIRAS, ApJ 473, 576 (1996). [31] R. A. Sunyaev and Y. B. Zeldovich, Small-scale fluctuations of relic radiation, Ap&SS 7, 3 (1970). [32] J. Chluba and R. A. Sunyaev, The evolution of CMB spectral distortions, MNRAS 419, 1294 (2012). [33] J. Chluba, Could the cosmological recombination spectrum help us understand cosmology?, MNRAS 436, 2232 (2013). [34] A. Kogut et al., The Primordial Inflation Explorer (PIXIE), JCAP 07, 025 (2011). [35] B. J. Carr et al., New cosmological constraints on primordial black holes, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104019 (2010). [36] B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda, J. Yokoyama, Constraints on primordial black holes, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, 116902 (2021). [37] DESI Collaboration, The DESI Experiment Part I, arXiv:1611.00036 (2016). [38] V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981). [39] A. A. Starobinsky, Phys. Lett. B 117, 175 (1982). [40] A. H. Guth and S.-Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982). [41] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982). [42] J. M. Bardeen, P. J. Steinhardt, and M. S. Turner, Phys. Rev. D 28, 679 (1983). [43] V. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology (Cambridge, 2005). [44] H. B. Callen and T. A. Welton, Phys. Rev. 83, 34 (1951). [45] R. Kubo, Rep. Prog. Phys. 29, 255 (1966). [46] A. O. Caldeira and A. J. Leggett, Ann. Phys. 149, 374 (1983). [47] A. Kamenev, Field Theory of Non-Equilibrium Systems (Cambridge, 2011). [48] B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 168, 399 (1974). [49] A. A. Starobinsky, in Field Theory, Quantum Gravity and Strings, eds. H. J. de Vega and N. Sanchez (Springer, 1986).