Big Bang as spacetime defect

F.R. Klinkhamer

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Big Bang as spacetime defect

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The Big Bang's infinite curvature can be replaced by a smooth spacetime defect.

desk verdict A clear, honest review of the author's own degenerate-metric cosmology, but the singularity-removal claim rests entirely on the contested continuous-extension convention. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.03538 v5 pith:5LKEU4VU submitted 2024-12-04 gr-qc astro-ph.COhep-th

F.R. Klinkhamer This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.COhep-th PACS 04.20.Cv98.80.Bp04.20.Gz

keywords generalrelativitybigbangtheoryspacetimetopologydegeneratemetricdefectcontinuousextensionbouncingcosmology

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This review argues that the infinite-curvature Big Bang of the standard expanding-universe solution is not forced: one can replace the usual spatially flat cosmological metric by a degenerate metric whose determinant vanishes on the t=0 slice. With the right scale factor, the modified field equations are regular at t=0, the curvature invariant stays finite, and the solution extends smoothly to negative t. If accepted, the Big Bang is reinterpreted as a spacetime defect with an expanding world on each side rather than as an event of infinite density and curvature. The same idea is applied to traversable wormholes, removing the need for exotic matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is a $C^\infty$ degenerate metric with a three-dimensional defect at $t=0$, interpreted as a spacetime defect. Because the inverse metric and Christoffel symbols diverge there, the paper does not evaluate $R_{\mu\nu}$ directly; instead it writes $R_{\mu\nu}=W_{\mu\nu}/g^2$ and demands $W_{\mu\nu}=0$, with values at $t=0$ taken as limits $t\to 0$. This continuous-extension procedure turns the modified cosmological field equations into regular equations whose solution has the bounce form $a(t)\propto (t^2+b^2)^{1/4}$.

What would settle it

A reader could settle the claim by computing the distributional value of the Einstein tensor at $t=0$ for the metric (4.1a) without invoking the extension rule: if a delta-function shell appears, the singularity has been moved rather than removed; if the tensor vanishes, the construction holds.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Big Bang curvature singularity of the standard cosmological solution can be eliminated by the metric $ds^2 = -\frac{t^2}{t^2+b^2}dt^2 + a^2(t)\delta_{mn}dx^m dx^n$, whose determinant vanishes on the spacelike hypersurface $t=0$. With $a(t)=\left((t^2+b^2)/(t_0^2+b^2)\right)^{1/4}$, all components of the Einstein field equation, defined by continuous extension, are satisfied and the Kretschmann curvature scalar behaves as $K\propto 1/(b^2+t^2)^2$, finite at $t=0$. The paper summarises the situation as “the nonsingular equations have a singular solution, while the singular equations have a regular solution.”

Load-bearing premise

Everything depends on accepting the continuous-extension rule: a metric whose determinant vanishes on the surface $t=0$ counts as a solution because the combination $g^2R_{\mu\nu}$ is finite there, even though the inverse metric and individual curvature components diverge.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the continuous-extension convention is accepted, the Big Bang has finite curvature and finite energy density, with magnitudes set by the length scale $b$.
The cosmological solution has a second branch: for $t<0$ there is another expanding world, so the Big Bang is a surface joining two sides rather than an absolute beginning.
The standard singularity theorems remain valid, but their conclusion is geodesic incompleteness, which is here read as evidence of a degenerate metric rather than of unbounded curvature.
The same degenerate-metric construction makes a traversable wormhole possible with normal matter, or even with no matter at all, provided the continuous-extension convention governs the throat.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

Editorial extension: if the length scale $b$ is tied to the Planck scale, the defect lies beyond direct observation; if $b$ is larger, it would leave an imprint in the gravitational-wave or perturbation spectrum that the paper does not work out.
Editorial extension: the same $g^2R_{\mu\nu}$ device could in principle be applied to other curvature singularities, but each candidate requires its own smooth degenerate metric and extension limit.
Editorial extension: the two-world interpretation has an asymmetric observational signature: classical signals cannot cross between the worlds, while quantum correlations are not excluded, giving a concrete but currently untestable distinction.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This is a review paper, not new research, and Klinkhamer says so explicitly. It collects his earlier proposal to replace the FLRW singularity with a degenerate metric, adds some clarifying mathematics, and responds to critics. The calculations are straightforward and the paper is open about the fact that it is not using standard general relativity. That honesty is worth credit.

What the paper does well: it makes the construction easy to follow, attributes the continuous-extension idea to Horowitz and Einstein-Rosen, and cites an independent paper (Holdom) that reproduces the cosmological metric and finds the same finite curvature invariants. The wormhole appendix is a useful self-contained summary. The mathematics is internally consistent under the stated assumptions.

The soft spot is the load-bearing convention. The metric's determinant vanishes at t=0, so the inverse metric, Christoffel symbols, and curvature components diverge there. The author defines the field equations by writing G_mu nu = W_mu nu / g^2 and requiring W_mu nu=0 with values by limit. That is a definition, not a consequence of the Einstein equation, and the author admits "we are not considering standard general relativity." The rebuttal to Feng and to Baines-Gaur-Visser in Appendix B.3 essentially restates the convention rather than providing an independent check. If one does not accept the continuous-extension prescription, the singularity has not been removed but merely redefined away. The stress-test worry about regularization dependence is valid: for this specific metric the limit is likely unique because it is a one-variable problem, but the physical admissibility of the procedure is still open.

A second, lesser issue: the "second world" is an interpretation, not a prediction. The parameter b is a free scale, and no observational consequence is derived that would distinguish this from a standard bounce. That is fine for a speculative review, but it limits the paper's forward advance.

Overall, the paper is a fair and clear presentation of a speculative idea. It deserves a serious referee because the central question - whether degenerate metrics with continuous extension can be physically viable in GR - is real and worth community scrutiny. I would not cite it in my own work in the near term unless I were directly working on degenerate-metric gravity, but I would point students to it as a clearly written example of the approach.

Recommendation: send it to peer review, with the understanding that the referee should focus on the continuous-extension procedure and its physical legitimacy.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This review paper by Klinkhamer argues that the Big Bang curvature singularity of the Friedmann--Lemaître--Robertson--Walker (FLRW) solution can be removed by replacing the Robertson--Walker metric with the degenerate metric (4.1a), ds^2 = -[t^2/(t^2+b^2)] dt^2 + a^2(t) δ_{mn} dx^m dx^n, whose determinant vanishes on the spacelike hypersurface t=0. Section 4 derives the modified Friedmann equations (4.4), records the smooth solution (4.9) with a(t) = ((t^2+b^2)/(t0^2+b^2))^{1/4}, and shows that the Kretschmann scalar (4.10) is finite at t=0. The mathematical basis is the continuous-extension procedure of Sec. 4.4, in which the Einstein equation is written as W_{μν}/g^2 = 0 and satisfied by continuity at the degenerate hypersurface. Sections 5 and 6 discuss the two “worlds” on either side of the defect, the possibility of classical communication between them, and a speculative origin in the IIB matrix model. Appendix B extends the same construction to a defect wormhole that can satisfy the null energy condition without exotic matter. The paper explicitly states in Sec. 6 that it is not considering standard general relativity.

Significance. If the continuous-extension convention is accepted, the paper provides a concrete construction showing that the singularity theorems do not force an unbounded-curvature Big Bang: the FLRW spacetime can be extended through a degenerate 3-surface with finite curvature, and the singularity is replaced by a “defect” with a second side. The calculations are explicit and analytic, the nonstandard premise is stated clearly, and part of the analysis is independently reproduced in Ref. 37, which is a genuine strength. The paper also engages, rather than ignores, the known criticism of Refs. 66 and 67. However, the physical significance is conditional: the claimed taming of the singularity lives inside the continuous-extension convention, not in standard GR, and no observable signature is proposed that would distinguish this scenario from the singular FLRW model. The review is therefore valuable as a pedagogical and programmatic document, but its central physical claim is not established beyond the chosen convention.

major comments (3)

[Sec. 4.4, Eq. (4.11), App. B.3] The central claim rests entirely on the continuous-extension convention, which is asserted rather than independently validated. The inverse metric and the Christoffel symbols diverge at t=0, and the paper defines the field equations there by requiring W_{μν}=0 in the limit; this is a convention, not a consequence of the Einstein equation. The reply to Refs. 66 and 67 in App. B.3 restates the same convention (“we implicitly work with g^2 R_{μν}=W_{μν}”) rather than providing an independent check. The unresolved question is whether the t→0 limit is independent of the regularization, coordinate, or tetrad choice. The alternative tetrad (4.8) is a concrete worry: for the same metric it produces a δ-function contribution in the curvature (4.8d), so the smoothness of the “right” tetrad is an extra condition, not an invariant property. To make the claim load-bearing, the paper should either prove regularization-independence of the continuous extension or explicitly state that the singularity removal is convention-dependent.
[Sec. 4.3 and Sec. 6] The abstract and title claim that the Big Bang singularity is “eliminated” is too strong given the paper’s own admission in Sec. 6 that “we are not considering standard general relativity.” In standard GR, the metric (4.1a) with the solution (4.9) is not a solution of the Einstein equation at t=0; at best it is a solution of a theory modified by the continuous-extension prescription. The review should either restrict its conclusion to this prescription or provide an independent physical argument for why the prescription is the correct one, for example by showing that a family of nondegenerate metrics with g00 = -t^2/(t^2+b^2+ε^2) has a well-defined distributional limit whose Einstein equations reduce to the ones used here.
[Sec. 4.2, Eq. (4.8)] The regularity of the solution is partly engineered by the choice of the tetrad (4.5) and by assuming an even scale factor with a2>0 in (4.7). The paper itself shows that the alternative tetrad (4.8) gives a δ-function curvature term (4.8d). This demonstrates that the smoothness result is not robust under allowed redefinitions of the tetrad: a degenerate metric does not have a unique smooth tetrad, and the selection of a specific representative is a further assumption that should be stated as such in the main text. Since the metric, not the tetrad, is the physical field in the second-order formalism, the paper should justify why the “right” tetrad is distinguished.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. 1, Introduction] In the fourth paragraph, “we would need a new way to deal with these infinities” reads awkwardly, and the phrase “completely revise of our understanding” should be “completely revise our understanding”; later in the same section, “Gamov” should be “Gamow”.
[Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.1b)] The text refers to “the bar on ρ” but the displayed equation (5.1b) does not show a bar on the density variable; please clarify the notation or remove the reference to the bar.
[Sec. 4.4, remark (1)] The attribution of the identity R_{μν}=W_{μν}/g^2 to Einstein and Rosen is interesting, but the derivation is not given; since the paper is a pedagogical review, a brief explicit identity would help the reader verify the claim without consulting the cited textbook.
[Sec. 2.2] The sentence “It is already over a century ago that Einstein realized...” is stylistically awkward; consider “It is now more than a century since Einstein realized...”.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the defect solution is rederived from its stated metric ansatz and the continuous-extension rule is disclosed as an explicit convention, not a hidden input.

full rationale

The central derivation is self-contained. Sec. 4.1 states the degenerate-metric ansatz (4.1a) with a free length scale b; inserting it into the Einstein equation with a perfect fluid yields the modified Friedmann equations (4.4), whose w=1/3 solution is (4.9). The finite Kretschmann scalar (4.10) is a direct computation from that metric, not an output of a fitted parameter or of the cited prior papers. The paper is a review of the author's own program, and self-citations (e.g., Refs. 11, 30-35) are abundant, but the derivation in the text does not lean on them: the ansatz is re-stated, the ODEs are displayed, and the solution is exhibited. The continuous-extension criterion (4.11), quoted from Horowitz, is an explicit convention rather than a camouflaged input; the paper concedes in Sec. 6 that 'we are not considering standard general relativity' and App. B.3 says the reply to Refs. 66-67 rests on the same convention. That is a scope/validity limitation and a candidate for a correctness debate, not a circular reduction. The alternative-tetrad delta-function calculation (4.8d) is acknowledged in the text and concerns the choice of smooth tetrad; it does not show that the metric's claimed regularity is an identity between premises and conclusion. Hence no step in the derivation chain is equivalent to its inputs by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central construction relies on one nonstandard mathematical convention (continuous extension), one tetrad choice, the standard Einstein-matter framework, and an interpretive assumption about thermodynamic time. The free scales b, b0, lambda set the sizes of the defects and are not fitted. No new particles or forces are postulated; the 'spacetime defect' and 'other world' are aspects of the proposed solution without independent evidence.

free parameters (3)

b (defect length scale in cosmological metric)
Appears in g00 = -t^2/(t^2+b^2) in Eq. (4.1a); controls the time scale over which the metric degenerates and sets curvature scale K ~ 1/b^4 at t=0 (Eq. (6.1a)). No data constrain it; without further input it is set to 1/E_Planck by dimensional reasoning (Sec. 6).
b0 (wormhole throat scale)
Length scale in defect-wormhole metric (B.1); must be large enough for human traversal (App. B.1). Not fitted to observations.
lambda (wormhole defect scale)
Additional length scale in (B.1); lambda^2 = b0^2 gives vacuum defect wormhole, lambda^2 > b0^2 gives normal-matter wormhole (App. B.1). Not fitted.

assumptions (4)

ad hoc to paper Horowitz continuous-extension procedure: a smooth metric with det g=0 on a measure-zero set is a solution of the Einstein equation if g^2 R_{mu nu} is continuous and vanishes (Eq. (4.11)); solution values at the defect are defined by the limit t -> 0.
Invoked in Sec. 4.4 and App. B.3 to define the Einstein equation at the degenerate hypersurface; this is the core nonstandard step. Refs. 66,67 dispute it.
domain assumption The 'correct' tetrad choice: e0 = t/sqrt(t^2+b^2) dt rather than |t|/sqrt(t^2+b^2) dt; the latter would produce delta-function curvature (Eqs. (4.8), (4.8d)).
The smoothness of the solution depends on this tetrad; the paper asserts the chosen tetrad is the physically appropriate one (Sec. 4.2, App. B.2).
standard math Standard Einstein-Hilbert action, perfect-fluid matter, and the energy conditions for the matter sector (Secs. 2.2, 3.1).
The modified Friedmann equations are derived from the standard Einstein equation (2.2) applied to a degenerate metric; matter is assumed to obey NEC, with radiation EOS w=1/3 for the main solution.
domain assumption Thermodynamic time interpretation: physical time in each world is T=|t| and matter perturbations grow with T, making the t<0 branch an expanding world rather than a contracting pre-Big-Bang phase (Sec. 5.1, Eq. (5.3)).
Needed for the 'two sides of the Big Bang' claim and for the argument that direct classical communication between worlds is impossible.

invented entities (3)

Big Bang spacetime defect
purpose: A 3D spacelike submanifold where det g=0; replaces the curvature singularity with a degenerate-metric surface that is treated by continuous extension.
No independent observational handle is provided; its existence is the content of the proposed solution itself.
Second world W- (other side of the Big Bang)
purpose: The t<0 branch of the defect-cosmology solution, interpreted as a second expanding world with its own thermodynamic time.
The paper argues direct classical communication is impossible and only speculative entanglement could connect worlds; no falsifiable signal is proposed.
Vacuum-defect wormhole (lambda^2=b0^2)
purpose: A traversable wormhole without exotic matter, with degenerate metric at the throat and different spatial orientability (App. B).
No observational signature proposed; the author acknowledges traversable wormholes are entirely speculative (Sec. 7).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Big Bang as spacetime defect." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5LKEU4VU

@misc{pith2026241203538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Big Bang as spacetime defect},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5LKEU4VU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.03538}
}

read the original abstract

We review the suggestion that it is possible to eliminate the Big Bang curvature singularity of the Friedmann cosmological solution by considering a particular type of degenerate spacetime metric. Specifically, we take the 4-dimensional spacetime metric to have a spacelike 3-dimensional defect with a vanishing determinant of the metric. This new solution suggests the existence of another "side" of the Big Bang (perhaps a more appropriate description than "pre-Big-Bang" phase used in our original paper). The corresponding new solution for defect wormholes is also briefly discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.03538 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Cosmic scale factor a(t) of the spatially-flat FLRW universe with wM = 1/3 matter, as given by (3.5a) with t0 = 4 √ 5. The affine spin connection (3.4) of the FLRW solution also diverges as 1/ √ t for t → 0 +. As explained in the Introduction, the question is whether or not these infinities are mathematical artifacts. Incidentally, inflation19–21 does not really solve the problem of proper initial conditions (see, … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Cosmic scale factor a(t) of the spatially-flat FLRWK universe with w = 1/3 matter, as given by (4.9a) for b = 1 and t0 = 4 √ 5. Observe that the function a(t) from (4.9a) is convex over a finite interval around t = 0 (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Penrose conformal diagram of the defect-cosmology s [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (1 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Embedding diagram of a wormhole spacetime with metri [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

[1]

A relation between distance and radial veloci ty among extra-galactic nebulae,

E. Hubble, “A relation between distance and radial veloci ty among extra-galactic nebulae,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168 (1929)

work page 1929
[2]

A measurement of excess ant enna temperature at 4080-Mc/s,

A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson, “A measurement of excess ant enna temperature at 4080-Mc/s,” Astrophys. J. 142, 419 (1965)

work page 1965
[3]

Expanding universe and the origin of elements,

G. Gamow, “Expanding universe and the origin of elements, ” Phys. Rev. 70, 572 (1946)

work page 1946
[4]

Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ a tstheorie

A. Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ a tstheorie” (The foundation of the general theory of relativity), Annalen Phys. (Leipzig) 49, 769 (1916)

work page 1916
[5]

¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes

A.A. Friedmann, “ ¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes” (On the curvature of space), Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922); “ ¨Uber die M¨ oglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Kr¨ ummung des Raumes” (On the possibility of a world with con stant negative cur- vature), Z. Phys. 21, 326 (1924)

work page 1922
[6]

L’expansion de l’espace

G. Lema ˆ ıtre, “L’expansion de l’espace” (The expansion of space), Revue des Questions Scientiﬁques 20, 391 (1931)

work page 1931
[7]

Robertson, “Kinematics and world-structure,’ Astrophys

H.P. Robertson, “Kinematics and world-structure,’ Astrophys. J. 82, 284 (1935); 83, 187 (1936); 83, 257 (1936)

work page 1935
[8]

On Milne’s theory of world-structure,

A.G. Walker, “On Milne’s theory of world-structure,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 42, 90 (1937)

work page 1937

Show all 69 references

[9]

Peebles, L.A

P.J.E. Peebles, L.A. Page, and R.B. Partridge, Finding the big bang (Cambridge Uni- versity Press, Cambridge, UK, 2009)

2009
[10]

¨Uber irreversible Strahlungsvorg¨ ange

M. Planck, “ ¨Uber irreversible Strahlungsvorg¨ ange” (On irreversable radiation pro- cesses), Ann. Phys. 1, 69 (1900)

1900
[11]

Regularized big bang singularity,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “Regularized big bang singularity,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 023536 (2019), [arXiv:1903.10450 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[12]

Topology change in classical and quantu m gravity,

G.T. Horowitz, “Topology change in classical and quantu m gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 8, 587 (1991)

1991
[13]

Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology : Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology : Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (John Wiley and Sons, New York, 1972)

1972
[14]

Eguchi, P.B

T. Eguchi, P.B. Gilkey, and A.J. Hanson, Gravitation, ga uge theories and diﬀerential geometry. Phys. Rept. 66 213 (1980). Big Bang as spacetime defect 29

1980
[15]

The cosmological constant and the th eory of elementary particles,

Ya.B. Zel’dovich, “The cosmological constant and the th eory of elementary particles,” Sov. Phys. Usp. 11, 381 (1968)

1968
[16]

Schr¨ odinger, Space-Time Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1950)

E. Schr¨ odinger, Space-Time Structure (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1950)

1950
[17]

Variationa l formulation of general rela- tivity from 1915 to 1925 “Palatini’s method

M. Ferraris, M. Francaviglia, and C. Reina, “Variationa l formulation of general rela- tivity from 1915 to 1925 “Palatini’s method” discovered by E instein in 1925,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 14, 243 (1982)

1982
[18]

Wald, General Relativity (Chicago UP, Chicago, IL, USA, 1984)

R.M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago UP, Chicago, IL, USA, 1984)

1984
[19]

The inﬂationary universe: A possible soluti on to the horizon and ﬂatness problems,

A.H. Guth, “The inﬂationary universe: A possible soluti on to the horizon and ﬂatness problems,” Phys. Rev. D 23, 347 (1981)

1981
[20]

A new inﬂationary universe scenario: A poss ible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems,

A.D. Linde, “A new inﬂationary universe scenario: A poss ible solution of the horizon, ﬂatness, homogeneity, isotropy and primordial monopole pr oblems,” Phys. Lett. B 108, 389 (1982)

1982
[21]

Cosmology for Grand Un iﬁed Theories with radia- tively induced symmetry breaking,

A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt, “Cosmology for Grand Un iﬁed Theories with radia- tively induced symmetry breaking,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 48, 1220 (1982)

1982
[22]

Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Univer se (Knopﬀ, New York, 2005)

R. Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Univer se (Knopﬀ, New York, 2005)

2005
[23]

The topological theory of defects in order ed media,

N.D. Mermin, “The topological theory of defects in order ed media,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 51, 591 (1979)

1979
[24]

Schwarz, Nontrivial Spacetime Topology, Modiﬁed Dispersion Relati ons, and an SO(3)-Skyrme Model , PhD Thesis, KIT, July 2010 (Verlag Dr

M. Schwarz, Nontrivial Spacetime Topology, Modiﬁed Dispersion Relati ons, and an SO(3)-Skyrme Model , PhD Thesis, KIT, July 2010 (Verlag Dr. Hut, M¨ unchen, Ger- many, 2010; ISBN 978-3-86853-623-2)

2010
[25]

A new type of nonsingular black-hole s olution in general relativity,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “A new type of nonsingular black-hole s olution in general relativity,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 29, 1430018 (2014), [arXiv:1309.7011 [gr-qc]]

2014 arXiv
[26]

Skyrmion spacetime defect,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “Skyrmion spacetime defect,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 024007 (2014), [arXiv:1402.7048 [gr-qc]]

2014 arXiv
[27]

Comparison of spacetime d efects which are home- omorphic but not diﬀeomorphic,

F.R. Klinkhamer and F. Sorba, “Comparison of spacetime d efects which are home- omorphic but not diﬀeomorphic,” J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 55, 112503 (2014), [arXiv:1404.2901 [hep-th]]

2014 arXiv
[28]

Skyrmion spacetime defect, degenerate me tric, and negative gravitational mass,

M. Guenther, “Skyrmion spacetime defect, degenerate me tric, and negative gravitational mass,” Master Thesis, KIT, September 2017; a vailable from https://www.itp.kit.edu/en/ publications/diploma

2017
[29]

On a soliton-type spacetime defect,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “On a soliton-type spacetime defect,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1275, 012012 (2019), [arXiv:1811.01078 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[30]

More on the regularized big bang singu larity,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “More on the regularized big bang singu larity,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 064029 (2020), [arXiv:1907.06547 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[31]

Nonsingular bouncing co smology from general rel- ativity,

F.R. Klinkhamer and Z.L. Wang, “Nonsingular bouncing co smology from general rel- ativity,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 083534 (2019), [arXiv:1904.09961 [gr-qc]]

2019 arXiv
[32]

Nonsingular bouncing co smology from gen- eral relativity: Scalar metric perturbations,

F.R. Klinkhamer and Z.L. Wang, “Nonsingular bouncing co smology from gen- eral relativity: Scalar metric perturbations,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 064061 (2020), [arXiv:1911.06173 [gr-qc]]

2020 arXiv
[33]

Regularized big bang singularity: Geodesic c ongruences,

Z L. Wang, “Regularized big bang singularity: Geodesic c ongruences,” Phys. Rev. D 104, 084093 (2021), [arXiv:2109.04229 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[34]

Nonsingular bouncing cosmology in genera l relativity: Physical analysis of the spacetime defect,

E. Battista, “Nonsingular bouncing cosmology in genera l relativity: Physical analysis of the spacetime defect,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 195007 (2021), [arXiv:2011.09818 [gr-qc]]

2021 arXiv
[35]

M-theory and the birth of the Universe ,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “M-theory and the birth of the Universe ,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 52, 1007 (2021), [arXiv:2102.11202 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[36]

CPT-symmetric Universe ,

L. Boyle, K. Finn, and N. Turok, “CPT-symmetric Universe ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 251301 (2018), [arXiv:1803.08928 [hep-ph]]. 30 F.R. Klinkhamer

2018 arXiv
[37]

Cosmologies with turning points,

B. Holdom, “Cosmologies with turning points,” Phys. Let t. B 839, 137802 (2023), [arXiv:2302.10716 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[38]

The particle problem in the gener al theory of relativity,

A. Einstein, N. Rosen, “The particle problem in the gener al theory of relativity,” Phys. Rev. 48 73 (1935)

1935
[39]

The occurrence of singularities in cosmo logy. III. Causality and singularities,

S.W. Hawking, “The occurrence of singularities in cosmo logy. III. Causality and singularities,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 300, 187 (1967)

1967
[40]

The singularities of gravi tational collapse and cos- mology,

S.W. Hawking and R. Penrose, “The singularities of gravi tational collapse and cos- mology,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529 (1970)

1970
[41]

Hawking and G.F.R

S.W. Hawking and G.F.R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 1973)

1973
[42]

Bouncing cosmology made s imple,

A. Ijjas and P.J. Steinhardt, “Bouncing cosmology made s imple,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35, 135004 (2018), [arXiv:1803.01961 [astro-ph.CO]]

2018 arXiv
[43]

Superstring cosmology – a complemen tary review,

R. Brandenberger, “Superstring cosmology – a complemen tary review,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11, 019 (2023), [arXiv:2306.12458 [hep-th]]

2023 arXiv
[44]

Maggiore, Gravitational Waves

M. Maggiore, Gravitational Waves. Vol. 2: Astrophysics and Cosmology (Oxford Uni- versity Press, Oxford, UK, 2018)

2018
[45]

Davies, The Physics of Time Asymmetry (University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 1977)

P.C.W. Davies, The Physics of Time Asymmetry (University of California Press, Berkeley, USA, 1977)

1977
[46]

Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition (Wiley, New York, USA, 1999)

J.D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, Third Edition (Wiley, New York, USA, 1999)

1999
[47]

Can quantum mech anical description of physical reality be considered complete?,

A. Einstein, B. Podolsky, and N. Rosen, “Can quantum mech anical description of physical reality be considered complete?,” Phys. Rev. 47, 777 (1935)

1935
[48]

Ghirardi, Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards: Unraveling the Mysteries of Q uantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 2005)

G.C. Ghirardi, Sneaking a Look at God’s Cards: Unraveling the Mysteries of Q uantum Mechanics (Princeton University Press, Princeton, USA, 2005)

2005
[49]

Quantum ﬁeld theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication,

P.H. Eberhard and R.R. Ross, “Quantum ﬁeld theory cannot provide faster-than-light communication,” Found Phys Lett 2, 127 (1989)

1989
[50]

Green, J.H

M.B. Green, J.H. Schwarz, and E. Witten, Superstring Theory , Volumes 1 and 2 (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1987)

1987
[51]

A l arge-N reduced model as superstring,

N. Ishibashi, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, and A. Tsuchiya, “A l arge-N reduced model as superstring,” Nucl. Phys. B 498, 467 (1997), [arXiv:hep-th/9612115]

1997 arXiv
[52]

IIB matrix model,

H. Aoki, S. Iso, H. Kawai, Y. Kitazawa, A. Tsuchiya, and T. Tada, “IIB matrix model,” Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 134, 47 (1999), [arXiv:hep-th/9908038]

1999 arXiv
[53]

IIB matrix model: Emergent spacetime from the master ﬁeld,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “IIB matrix model: Emergent spacetime from the master ﬁeld,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 013B04 (2021), [arXiv:2007.08485 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[54]

IIB matrix model and regularized big b ang,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “IIB matrix model and regularized big b ang,” Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2021, 063B05 (2021), [arXiv:2009.06525 [hep-th]]

2021 arXiv
[55]

IIB matrix model, bosonic master ﬁeld , and emergent spacetime,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “IIB matrix model, bosonic master ﬁeld , and emergent spacetime,” PoS CORFU2021, 259 (2022), [arXiv:2203.15779 [hep-th]]

2022 arXiv
[56]

Self-tuning vacuum v ariable and cosmological constant,

F.R. Klinkhamer and G.E. Volovik, “Self-tuning vacuum v ariable and cosmological constant,” Phys. Rev. D 77, 085015 (2008), [arXiv:0711.3170 [gr-qc]]

2008 arXiv
[57]

Morris, K.S

M.S. Morris, K.S. Thorne, Wormholes in space-time and th eir use for interstellar travel: A tool for teaching general relativity. Am. J. Phys. 56, 395 (1988)

1988
[58]

Ether ﬂow through a drainhole: A particle mo del in general relativity,

H.G. Ellis, “Ether ﬂow through a drainhole: A particle mo del in general relativity,” J. Math. Phys. 14, 104 (1973); Errata J. Math. Phys. 15, 520 (1974)

1973
[59]

Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charg e,

K.A. Bronnikov, “Scalar-tensor theory and scalar charg e,” Acta Phys. Pol. B 4, 251 (1973)

1973
[60]

Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking

M. Visser (1996) “ Lorentzian Wormholes: From Einstein to Hawking ” (Springer, New York, NY, USA)

1996
[61]

Klinkhamer, Defect wormhole: A traversable wormho le without exotic matter

F.R. Klinkhamer, Defect wormhole: A traversable wormho le without exotic matter. Acta Phys. Polon. B 54 5-A3 (2023), [arXiv:2301.00724 [gr-qc]]]

2023 arXiv
[62]

Vacuum-defect wormholes and a mirror world,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “Vacuum-defect wormholes and a mirror world,” Acta Phys. Polon. Big Bang as spacetime defect 31 B 54, 7-A3 (2023), [arXiv:2305.13278 [gr-qc]]]

2023 arXiv
[63]

On a Schwarzschild-type defect wormhole,

Z.L. Wang, “On a Schwarzschild-type defect wormhole,” [ arXiv:2307.01678 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[64]

Geodesics motion of test particles around Sch warzschild-Klinkhamer wormhole with topological defects and gravitational lensi ng,

F. Ahmed, “Geodesics motion of test particles around Sch warzschild-Klinkhamer wormhole with topological defects and gravitational lensi ng,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 11, 010 (2023), [arXiv:2307.08503 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[65]

Topologically Charged Rotating Wormhole,

F. Ahmed, “Topologically Charged Rotating Wormhole,” Acta Phys. Polon. B 54, 11-A3 (2023), [arXiv:2308.03815 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[66]

Feng, ‘Smooth metrics can hide thin shells,” Class

J.C. Feng, ‘Smooth metrics can hide thin shells,” Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 197002 (2023), [arXiv:2308.11885 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[67]

Defect wormholes are d efective,

J. Baines, R. Gaur, and M. Visser, “Defect wormholes are d efective,” Universe 9, 452 (2023), [arXiv:2308.16624 [gr-qc]]

2023 arXiv
[68]

New type of traversable wormhole,

F.R. Klinkhamer, “New type of traversable wormhole,” Bulg. J. Phys. 51, 042 (2024), [arXiv:2307.04678 [gr-qc]]

2024 arXiv
[69]

Visualizing Interstel- lar’s Wormhole,

O. James, E. von Tunzelmann, P. Franklin, and K.S. Thorne , “Visualizing Interstel- lar’s Wormhole,” [arXiv:1502.03809 [gr-qc]]

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

A relation between distance and radial veloci ty among extra-galactic nebulae,

E. Hubble, “A relation between distance and radial veloci ty among extra-galactic nebulae,” Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 15, 168 (1929)

work page 1929

[2] [2]

A measurement of excess ant enna temperature at 4080-Mc/s,

A.A. Penzias and R.W. Wilson, “A measurement of excess ant enna temperature at 4080-Mc/s,” Astrophys. J. 142, 419 (1965)

work page 1965

[3] [3]

Expanding universe and the origin of elements,

G. Gamow, “Expanding universe and the origin of elements, ” Phys. Rev. 70, 572 (1946)

work page 1946

[4] [4]

Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ a tstheorie

A. Einstein, “Die Grundlage der allgemeinen Relativit¨ a tstheorie” (The foundation of the general theory of relativity), Annalen Phys. (Leipzig) 49, 769 (1916)

work page 1916

[5] [5]

¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes

A.A. Friedmann, “ ¨Uber die Kr¨ ummung des Raumes” (On the curvature of space), Z. Phys. 10, 377 (1922); “ ¨Uber die M¨ oglichkeit einer Welt mit konstanter negativer Kr¨ ummung des Raumes” (On the possibility of a world with con stant negative cur- vature), Z. Phys. 21, 326 (1924)

work page 1922

[6] [6]

L’expansion de l’espace

G. Lema ˆ ıtre, “L’expansion de l’espace” (The expansion of space), Revue des Questions Scientiﬁques 20, 391 (1931)

work page 1931

[7] [7]

Robertson, “Kinematics and world-structure,’ Astrophys

H.P. Robertson, “Kinematics and world-structure,’ Astrophys. J. 82, 284 (1935); 83, 187 (1936); 83, 257 (1936)

work page 1935

[8] [8]

On Milne’s theory of world-structure,

A.G. Walker, “On Milne’s theory of world-structure,” Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 42, 90 (1937)

work page 1937