Compare · Before the Universe
The Boundary Proposal vs Gott-Li Self-Creating Universe
← Back to The Boundary ProposalQuantum Tunneling Origin· within family
The Boundary Proposal Speculative | Gott-Li Self-Creating Universe Historical | |
|---|---|---|
| Proposed | 2024 | 1998 |
| Key figures | Bjoern Hassfeld, Arthur Hebecker | J. Richard Gott, Li-Xin Li |
| In one sentence | An alternative to Hartle-Hawking and Vilenkin in which the universe begins with a finite spacelike spherical boundary that can dominate over the no-boundary instanton. | Gott and Li proposed in 1998 that the early universe contained a closed time loop, allowing the universe to literally create itself. |
| Predictions |
|
|
| Where it breaks |
|
|
| Key unresolved problem | The input-geometry problem: the proposal has to be handed the size of its starting boundary surface from outside, which critics say just moves the fine-tuning problem somewhere else rather than removing it. | The chronology protection problem: as Hawking argued, quantum effects likely pile up runaway energy wherever a closed timelike curve, a path that loops back in time, would form, destroying the time loop this proposal needs before it can exist. |
| Reader vote | No votes yet | No votes yet |
The Boundary Proposal
2024 · Speculative
Gott-Li Self-Creating Universe
1998 · Historical
Proposed
2024
1998
Key figures
Bjoern Hassfeld, Arthur Hebecker
J. Richard Gott, Li-Xin Li
In one sentence
An alternative to Hartle-Hawking and Vilenkin in which the universe begins with a finite spacelike spherical boundary that can dominate over the no-boundary instanton.
Gott and Li proposed in 1998 that the early universe contained a closed time loop, allowing the universe to literally create itself.
Predictions
- Distinct primordial perturbation spectrum from Hartle-Hawking and Vilenkin proposals
- Specific signatures in the CMB tied to the boundary geometry
- The very early universe contained closed timelike curves
- A region of CTC geometry preceded the standard cosmological era
- Some specific predictions about the early universe's geometry differ from standard Big Bang cosmology
Where it breaks
- Requires specifying the boundary geometry as input, which some critics view as no improvement over the boundary conditions it replaces.
- The phenomenological implications are still being worked out and have not yet been compared to Planck data.
- Most physicists view closed timelike curves as unphysical or as a sign that general relativity breaks down
- The proposal requires specific energy conditions that may not be physically realizable
- No direct observational test
- Stephen Hawking proposed a "Chronology Protection Conjecture" that argues physics conspires to prevent CTCs from forming
Key unresolved problem
The input-geometry problem: the proposal has to be handed the size of its starting boundary surface from outside, which critics say just moves the fine-tuning problem somewhere else rather than removing it.
The chronology protection problem: as Hawking argued, quantum effects likely pile up runaway energy wherever a closed timelike curve, a path that loops back in time, would form, destroying the time loop this proposal needs before it can exist.
Reader vote
No votes yet
No votes yet