In this inquiry, we should take care not to fall into several pit falls of analysis. We should avoid conflating any conceivable connections of zero point energy extraction, especially ZPE, and fluctuation states of ZPE, with data compression. The two do not mix for reasons which will be elaborated upon in the text. Secondly, the discussion we are embarking upon has no connection with intelligent design. Lossless data compression is a class of data compression algorithms that allows the exact original data to be reconstructed from the compressed data. If we are to, as an example, reconstruct information pertinent to keeping the same cosmological parameter values of from a prior universe to our present, it is important to delineate physical processes allowing for lossless data compression, and to do it in a way which has connections with theologically tainted arguments contaminated with Intelligent Design thinking.

Alan Heavens et al. [7] identified criteria in an arXIV article stating “We show that, if the noise in the data is independent of the parameters, we can form linear combinations of the data which contain as much information about all the parameters as the entire dataset, in the sense that the Fisher information matrices are identical”, as a criteria for lossless data compression. For our purposes, this is similar to reducing noise in “information transfer” from a prior to a present universe as an ignorable datum which has no bearing upon encoded information values of from a prior universe to our present. So how do we make noise as inconsequential?

We have reviewed A. K. Avessian’s [8] article about alleged time variation of Planck’s constant from the early universe, and found the arguments incomplete, again for reasons which will be discussed later on in the text. What is important would be to specify what would be a minimal amount of information needed to encode/ transmit a value of from cosmological cycle to cycle, and to concentrate upon a lossless “data compression” physical process for transmission of that from cosmological cycle to cycle. The main criteria will be to identify a physical process where “noise” in the transmitted data is independent of the value of from cosmological cycle to cycle. The preferred venue for such a transmission would be a worm hole bridge from a prior to the present universe, as specified by both Beckwith [9] at STAIF, and. Crowell [10] . Batle-Vallespir cited in his PhD dissertation [11] criteria for the physics of information encoded in very small distances, but we are convinced that something closer to deformation mechanics treatment of quantization criteria will be necessary to tell us how to transmit a value of from cosmological cycle to cycle, via either a worm hole, or similar process, while maintaining lossless “data compression” by making whatever noise would be transmitted as inconsequential to keeping basic parameters intact from cycle to cosmological cycle. The identification of information, as we are doing here, with entropy measurements, makes a through investigation of entropy, and its generation as of high consequence to this inquiry.

K. Avessian’s article [8] (2009) about alleged time variation of Planck’s constant from the early universe depends heavily upon initial starting points for, as given below, where we pick our own values for the time parameters, for reasons we will justify in this manuscript:

The idea is that we are assuming a granular, discrete nature of space time. Furthermore, after a time we will state as t ~ t_Planck there is a transition to a present value of space time, which is then probably going to be held constant.

It is easy to, in this situation, to get an inter relationship of what is with respect to the other physical parameters, i.e. having the values of written as, as well as note how little the fine structure constant actually varies. Note that if we assume an unchanging Planck’s mass

, this means that G has a time variance, too.

This leads to us asking what can be done to get a starting value of recycled from a prior universe, to our present universe value. What is the initial value, and how does one insure its existence?

We obtain a minimum value as far as “information” via appealing to Hogan’s [12] argument where we have a maximum entropy as

and this can be compared with A. K. Avessian’s article [8] value of, where we pick

I.e. a choice as to how has an initial value, and entropy as scale valued by gives us a

ball park estimate as to compressed values of which would be transferred from a prior

universe, to today’s universe. If, this would mean an incredibly small value for the INITIAL H parameter, i.e. in pre inflation, we would have practically NO increase in expansion, just before the introduction vacuum energy, or emergent field energy from a prior universe, to our present universe.

Typically though, the value of the Hubble parameter, during inflation itself is HUGE, i.e. H is many times larger than 1, leading to initially very small entropy values. This means that we have to assume, initially, for a minimum transfer of entropy/information from a prior universe, that H is negligible. If we look at Hogan’s holographic model, this is consistent with a non finite event horizon

This is tied in with a temperature as given by

Nearly infinite temperatures are associated with tiny event horizon values, which in turn are linked to huge Hubble parameters of expansion. Whereas initially nearly zero values of temperature can be arguably linked to nearly non existent H values, which in term would be consistent with as a starting point to entropy. We next then must consider how the values of initial entropy are linkable to other physical models. I.e. can there be a transfer of entropy/information from a pre inflation state to the present universe. Doing this will require that we keep in mind, as Hogan [12] writes, that the number of distinguishable states is writable as

If, in this situation, that N is proportional to entropy, i.e. N as-number of entropy states to consider, then as H drops in size, as would happen in pre inflation conditions, we will have opportunities for N ~ 10⁵

The peak temperature as recorded by Weinberg [13] is of the order of 10³² Kelvin, and that would imply using the expansion parameter, H, as given by Equation (5) above. Likely before the onset of inflation, due to dimensional arguments, it can be safe to call the pre inflation temperature, T as very low. I.e. there was a build up of temperature, T, at the instant before inflation, which peaked shortly afterwards. Such an eventuality would be consistent with use of a worm hole bridge from a prior to a present universe. Beckwith [9] used such a model as a transfer of energy to the present universe, using formalism from Crowell’s book [10] . A useful model as far as rapid transfer of energy would likely be a quantum flux, as provided for in Deformation quantization. We will follow the following convention as far as initiating quantization, i.e. the reported idea of Weyl quantization which is as follows: For a classical, a corresponding quantum observable is definable via [14]

Here, C is the inverse Fourier transform, and w (,) is a weight function, and p, and q are canonical variables

fitting into, and the integral is taken over weak topology. For a quantized procedure as far

as refinement of Poisson brackets, the above, Weyl quantization is , as noted by S. Gutt and S. Waldemann [14] (2006) equivalent to finding an operation for which we can write

As well as for Poisson brackets, obeying, and

For very small regimes of spatial integration, we can approximate Equation (7) as a finite sum, with

What we are doing is to give the following numerical approximate value of, de facto, as follows

, and then we can state that

the inverse transform is a form of data compression of information. Here, we will state that {information bits for} as far as initial values of the Planck’s constant are concerned. Please see Appendix 1 as to how for thin shell geometries the Weyl quantization condition reduces to the Wheeler De Witt equation. I.e. a wave functional approximately presentable as

where R refers to a spatial distance from the center of a spherical universe. Appendix II is an accounting of what is known as a pseudo time dependent solution to the Wheeler de Witt equation involving a wormhole bridge between two universes. The metric assumed in Appendix I is a typical maximally symmetric metric, whereas Appendix II is using the Reisssner-Nordstrom metric. We assume, that to first order, if the value of R in

is nearly centimeters, I.e. close to singularity conditions, that the issue of how

much information from a prior universe, to our own may be addressed, and that the solution is consistent with regards to Weyl geometry. So let us consider what information is transferred. We claim that it centers about enough information with regards to preserving from universe cycle to cycle.

To begin this inquiry, it is appropriate to note that we are assuming that there is a variation in the value of

with a minimum value of centimeters to work with. Note that Honig’s (1973)

[15] article specified a general value of about grams, per photon, and that each photon has an energy

of. If one photon is, in energy equivalent to 10¹² gravitons, then, if =

Planck’s length, gives us a flux value as to how many gravitons/entropy units are transmitted. The key point is that we wish to determine what is a minimum amount of information bits/attendant entropy values needed for transmission of. In order to do this, note the article, i.e. a “A minimum photon “rest mass”-Using Planck’s constant and discontinuous electromagnetic waves which as written in September, 1974 [15] by Honig specifies a photon rest mass of the order of grams per photon. If we specify a mass of about 10⁻⁶⁰ grams per graviton, then to get at least one photon, and if we use photons as a way of “encapsulating”, then to first order, we need about 10¹² gravitons/entropy units with each graviton, in the beginning being designated as one “carrier container” of information for one unit of. If as an example, as calculated by Beckwith [10] (2008) that there were about 10²¹ gravitons introduced during the onset of inflation, this means a minimum copy of about one billion information packets being introduced from a prior universe, to our present universe, i.e. more than enough to insure introducing enough copies of to insure continuity of physical processes.

For those who doubt that 10⁻⁶⁰ grams per rest mass of a graviton can be reconciled with observational tests with respect to the Equivalence Principle and all classical weak-field tests, we refer the readers to Visser’s article about “Mass for the graviton” [16] . The heart of Visser’s calculation for a non zero graviton mass involve placing appropriate small off diagonal terms to the stress tensor T(u, v) calculation

What is being alluded to, is that variations in the AdS/CFT correspondence applications exist from what is usually assumed for usual matter. The differences, which are due to quark-gluon plasma models breaking down in the beginning of the big bang point to the necessity of using something similar to the counting algorithm as introduced by Ng, as a replacement for typical string theory models in strict accordance to AdS/CFT correspondence.

The goal of exploring the degree of divergence from AdS/CFT correspondence will be in quantifying a time sequence in evolution of the big bang where there is a break from causal continuity.

A break down in causal continuity [4] [17] will, if confirmed, be a way of signifying that encoded information from a prior era has to be passed through to the present universe in likely an emergent field configuration. If much of the information is passed to our present universe in an emergent field configuration, this leaves open the question of if or not there is a time sequence right after the initial phases of the big bang where there was a re constitution of information in traditional four space geometry.

The problem with implying data is compressed, is that this, at least by popular imagination implies highly specific machine/IT analogues. We wish to assure the readers that no such appeal to intelligent design/deity based arguments is implied in this document.

A point where there is a breakage in causal continuity will help determine if or not there is a reason for data compression. In computer science and information theory, data compression or source coding is the process of encoding information using fewer bits (or other information-bearing units) than an unencoded representation would use through use of specific encoding schemes. Using fewer bits of an encoding scheme for “information” may in its own way allow data compression. We need to have a similar model for explaining the degree of information transferred from a prior universe, to the present, while maintaining the structural integrity of the basic cosmological parameters, such as, G, and the fine structure constant.. In doing so, we will make the identification of information, with entropy, in effect mimicking simple entropy coding for infinite input data with a geometric distribution.

Again, while avoiding the intelligent design analogies, it is possible to imply that if there was a restriction of information to dimensions other than the typical space time dimensions of four space, with fifth and higher dimensions being our information conduit, that by default, data compression did occur during the restriction of much of the information encoded in kink-anti kink gravitons disappearing before the big bang in four space, and then re appearing in our present day four space geometry, as a spill over from a fifth dimension.

Since there is a problem physicists, writers, and editors have with any remote degree of ambiguity, let us briefly review what is known about singularity theorems for GR, in four space. Then make a reasonable extrapolation in fifth space embedding of the four dimensions, to make our point about singularities in four space more understandable.

Feinstein, et al. [18] laid out how singularities can be removed from the higher-dimensional model when only one of the extra dimensions is time-varying. If the fifth dimension has, indeed time variance, in any number of ways, four dimensional singularities no longer have the same impact with a time dependent fifth dimensions. And a varying fifth higher dimension is, in itself, a perfect conduit for information from a prior universe, to our present universe. The information restriction in four dimensions, then in four dimensions is a causal discontinuity, while the fifth dimension, with its time variance will be, due to information restriction from four dimensions, our avenue for data “compression” of transferal of information from a prior universe to our present. Furthermore, the spill over from a restriction in four space, to five spaces, with the dumping of information/entropy in present four space after it transfers from a prior universe corresponds to graviton re combination from kink-anti kink structures as entropy increases from a very low level.

This will be done, especially when entropy is held to be in tandem with a “particle count” of instanton-anti instanton packaged gravitons as the mechanism for increase of entropy from a much lower level to today’s level. To begin this analysis, let us look at what goes wrong in models of the early universe. The assertion made is that this is due to the quark-Gluon model of plasmas having major “counting algorithm” breaks with non counting algorithm conditions, i.e. when plasma physics conditions BEFORE the advent of the Quark gluon plasma existed. Here are some questions which need to be asked [19] - [22] .

1. Is QGP strongly coupled or not? Note: Strong coupling is a natural explanation for the small (viscosity).

Analogy to the RHIC: J/y survives deconfinement phase transition.

2. What is the nature of viscosity in the early universe? What is the standard story? (Hint: AdS-CFT correspondence models). Question 2 comes up since [23] .

Typically holds for liquid helium and most bosonic matter. However, this relation breaks down. At the beginning of the big bang. As follows.

I.e. if Gauss-Bonnet gravity is assumed, in order to still keep causality, one needs to have Equation (11) satisfied.

This even if one writes for a viscosity over entropy ratio the following [20] - [23] , so if We have

A careful researcher may ask why this is so important. If a causal discontinuity as indicated means the

ratio is, or less in value, it puts major restrictions upon viscosity, as well as entropy. A drop in viscosity, which can lead to major deviations from in typical models may be due to more collisions. Then, more

collisions due to WHAT physical process? Recall the argument put up earlier. I.e. the reference to causal discontinuity in four dimensions, and a restriction of information flow to a fifth dimension at the onset of the big bang/transition from a prior universe? That process of a collision increase may be inherent in the restriction to a fifth dimension, just before the big bang singularity, in four dimensions, of information flow. In fact, it very well be true, that initially, during the process of restriction to a 5^th dimension, right before the big bang, that

. Either the viscosity drops nearly to zero, or else the entropy density may, partly due to restriction

in geometric “sizing” may become effectively nearly infinite.

It is due to the following qualifications put in about Quark-Gluon plasmas which will be put up, here. Namely, more collisions imply less viscosity. More Deflections ALSO implies less viscosity. Finally, the more momentum transport is prevented, the less the viscosity value becomes. Say that a physics researcher is looking at viscosity due to turbulent fields. Also, perturbatively calculated viscosities: due to collisions. This has been known as Anomalous Viscosity in plasma physics, [21] (this is going nowhere, from pre-big bang to big bang cosmology).

So happens that RHIC models for viscosity assume [20] - [23] .

As Akazawa [21] noted in an RHIC study, Equation (13) above makes sense if one has stable temperature T, so that

If the temperature T wildly varies, as it does at the onset of the big bang, this breaks down completely. This development is Mission impossible: why we need a different argument for entropy. I.e. Even for the RHIC, and in computational models of the viscosity for closed geometries-what goes wrong in computational models

• Viscous Stress is NOT µ shear

• Nonlinear response: impossible to obtain on lattice ( computationally speaking)

• Bottom line: we DO NOT have a way to even define SHEAR in the vicinity of big bang!!!!

We now need to ask ourselves what may be a way to present entropy/entropy density in a manner which may

be consistent with having/explaining how may occur, and also what may be necessary to explain

how the entropy/entropy density may become extraordinarily large, and that, outside of the restriction to a fifth dimension argument mentioned earlier for “information” transferal to the onset of the big bang, that it is not necessary to appeal to nearly infinite collisions in order to have a drop in viscosity. This will lead to Ng’s “particle count” algorithm [2] for entropy, below

It is useful to state this convention for analyzing the resulting entropy calculations, because it is a way to explain how and why the number of instanton-anti instanton pairs, and their formulation and break up can be linked to the growth of entropy. If, as an example, there is a linkage between quantum energy level components of the quantum gas as brought up by Glinka [5] (2007) and the number of instanton-anti instanton pairs, then it is possible to ascertain a linkage between a Wheeler De Witt worm hole introduction of vacuum energy from a prior universe to our present universe, and the resulting brane-anti brane (instanton-anti instanton) units of entropy. What would be ideal would be to make an equivalence between a quantum number, n, say of a quantum graviton gas, as entering a worm hole, i.e. going back to the Energy (quantum gas), and the number of pairs of brane-anti brane pairs showing up in an entropy count, and the growth of entropy. We are fortunate that Dr. Jack Ng’s [1] research into entropy not only used the Shannon entropy model, but also as part of his quantum infinite statistics lead to a quantum counting algorithm with entropy proportional to “emergent field” particles. If as an example a quantum graviton gas exists, as suggested by Glinka [4] (2007), if each quantum gas “particle” is equivalent to a graviton, and that graviton is an “emergent” from quantum vacuum entity, then we fortuitously connect our research with gravitons with Shannon entropy, as given by. This is a counter part as to what Asakawa et al., [19] - [21] (2001, 2006) suggested for quark gluon gases, and the 2nd order phase transition written up by Torrieri et al. [22] (2008) brought up at the nuclear physics Erice (2008) school, in discussions with the author.

Furthermore, finding out if or not it is either a drop in viscosity, when, or a major increase in

entropy density may tell us how much information is, indeed, transferred from a prior universe to our present. If it is, for all effective purposes, at the moment after the pre big bang configuration, likely then there will be a high degree of “information” from a prior universe exchanged to our present universe. If on the other hand, due to restriction of “information” from four dimensional “geometry” to a variable fifth dimension, so as to indicate almost infinite collisions with a closure of a fourth dimensional “portal” for information flow, then it is likely that significant data compression has occurred. While stating this, it is note worthy to state that the Penrose-Hawking singularity theorems do not give precise answers as to information flow from a prior to the present universe. Hawking’s singularity theorem is for the whole universe, and works backwards-in-time: It guarantees that the big-bang has infinite density. This theorem is more restricted, it only holds when matter obeys a stronger energy condition, called the dominant energy condition, which means that the energy is bigger than the pressure. All ordinary matter, with the exception of a vacuum expectation value of a scalar field, obeys this condition.

This leaves open the question of if or not there is “infinite” density of ordinary matter, or if or not there is a fifth dimensional leakage of “information” from a prior universe to our present. If there is merely infinite “density”, and possibly infinite entropy “density/disorder at the origin, then perhaps no information from a prior universe is transferred to our present universe. On the other hand, having, or at least be very small may indicate that data compression is a de rigor way of treating how information for cosmological parameters, such as, G, and the fine structure constant. arose, and may have been recycled from a prior universe.

Details about this have to be worked out, and this because that as of present one of the few tools which is left to formulation and proof of the singularity theorems is the Raychaudhuri equation, which describes the divergence θ of a congruence (family) of geodesics, which has a lot of assumptions behind it, as stated by Dadhich [23] . As indicated by Hawking’s theorem, infinite density is its usual modus operandi, for a singularity, and this assumption may have to be revisited. Natário [24] has more details on the different type of singularities involved.

Let us first summarize what can be said about Ng’s quantum infinite statistics. Afterwards, the numerical counting involved has a direct connection with the pairs of brane-anti brane (kink-anti kink) structures Mathur and others worked with to get an entropy count. Ng [1] outlines how to get, which with additional arguments we refine to be (where is a “DM” density). Begin with a partition function. As given by Ng [1] (2007, 2008) and referenced by Beckwith (2009)

This, according to Ng, leads to entropy of the limiting value of

But, so unless N in Equation (16) above is about 1, S (entropy) would be < 0, which is a contradiction. Now this is where Jack Ng introduces removing the N! Term in Equation (15) above, i.e., inside the Log expression we remove the expression of N in Equation (16) above. This is a way to obtain what Ng refers to as Quantum Boltzmann statistics, so then we obtain for sufficiently large N

The supposition is that the value of N is proportional to a numerical DM density referred to as.

HFGW would play a role if has each of the order of being within an order of magnitude of the Planck length value, as implied by Beckwith [25] . What the author is examining is, if or not there can be

linkage made between and the expression given by Glinka (2007) [4] of, if we identify as a partition function (with u part of a Bogoliubov transformation) due to a graviton-quintess- ence gas, to get information theory based entropy [4]

Such a linkage would open up the possibility that the density of primordial gravitational waves could be examined, and linked to modeling gravity as an effective theory, as well as giving credence to how to avoid dS/dt = ∞ at S = 0. If so, then one can look at the research results of Samir Mathur [26] (2007). This is part of what has been developed in the case of massless radiation, where for D space-time dimensions, and E, the general energy is

This suggests that entropy scaling is proportional to a power of the vacuum energy, i.e., entropy ~ vacuum energy, if is interpreted as a total net energy proportional to vacuum energy, as given below. Conventional brane theory actually enables this instanton structure analysis, as can be seen in the following. This is adapted from a lecture given at the ICGC-07 conference by Beckwith [27] [28]

Traditionally, minimum length for space-time benchmarking has been via the quantum gravity modification of a minimum Planck length for a grid of space-time of Planck length, whereas this grid is changed to something

bigger. So far, we this only covers a typical string gas model for

entropy. is assigned as the as numerical density of brains and anti-branes. A brane-antibrane pair corresponds to solitons and anti-solitons in density wave physics. The branes are equivalent to instanton kinks in density wave physics, whereas the antibranes are an anti-instanton structure. First, a similar pairing in both black hole models and models of the early universe is examined, and a counting regime for the number of instanton and anti-instanton structures in both black holes and in early universe models is employed as a way to get a net entropy-information count value. One can observe this in the work of Lifschytz [29] in 2004. Lifschyztz [29] in codified thermalization equations of the black hole, which were recovered from the model of branes and antibranes and a contribution to total vacuum energy. In lieu of assuming an antibrane is merely the charge conjugate of say a Dp brane. Here, is the number of branes in an early universe configuration, while is anti-brane number. I.e., there is a kink in the given electron charge and for the corresponding anti-kink positron charge [30] [31] . Here, in the bottom expression, is the number of kink-anti-kink charge pairs, which is analogous to the simpler CDW structure [26] [29] .

This expression for entropy (based on the number of brane-anti-brane pairs) has a net energy value of as expressed in Equation (20) above, where is proportional to the cosmological vacuum energy parameter; in string theory, is also defined via [26] [29] .

Equation (22) can be changed and rescaled to treating the mass and the energy of the brane contribution along the lines of Mathur’s CQG [26] article (2007) where he has a string winding interpretation of energy: putting as much energy E into string windings as possible via, where there are wrappings of a string about a cycle of the torus, and being “wrappings the other way”, with the torus having a cycle of length L, which leads to an entropy defined in terms of an energy value of mass of (is the tension of the ith brane, and are spatial dimensions of a complex torus structure). The toroidal structure is to first approximation equivalent dimensionally to the minimum effective length of times Planck length centimeters [26] [29]

The windings of a string are given by figure 6.1 of Becker et al [32] , as the number of times the strings wrap about a circle midway in the length of a cylinder. The structure the string wraps about is a compact object construct Dp branes and anti-branes. Compactness is used to roughly represent early universe conditions, and the brane-anti brane pairs are equivalent to a bit of “information” This leads to entropy expressed as a strict numerical count of different pairs of Dp brane-Dp anti-branes, which form a higher-dimensional equivalent to graviton production. The tie in between Equation (24) below and Ng’s [1] treatment of the growth of entropy is as follows: First, look at the expression below, which has as a stated number of pairs of Dp brane-antibrane pairs: The suffix is in a 1 - 1 relationship with

We start off with looking at Vacuum energy and entropy. This suggests that entropy scaling is proportional to a power of the vacuum energy, i.e., entropy ~ vacuum energy, if is interpreted as a total net energy proportional to vacuum energy, i.e. go to Equation (10) above. What will be done is hopefully, with proper analysis of T(u, v) at the onset of creation, is to distinguish, between entropy say of what Mathur [26] wrote, as, and see how it compares with the entropy of the center of the galaxy, as given by Equation (25), as opposed to the entropy of the universe, as given by Equation (16) below. The entropy which will be part of the resulting vacuum energy will be writable as either Black hole entropy and/or the Universe’s entropy. I.e. for black hole entropy, from Sean Carroll [5] (2005), the entropy of a huge black hole of mass M at the center of the Milky Way galaxy. Note there are at least a BILLION GALAXIES, and M is ENORMOUS

This needs to be compared with the entropy of the universe, as given by Sean Carroll, as stated by [5]

The claim made here is that if one knew how to evaluate T(u, v) properly, that the up to 10⁹ difference in Equations (25) and (26) will be understandable, and that what seems to be dealt with directly. Doing so is doable if one understands the difference/similarities in Equations (21), (23), and (24), above. So, how does one do this? The candidate picked which may be able to obtain some commonality in the different entropy formalisms is to confront what is both right and wrong in Seth Lloyd’s entropy treatment in terms of operations as given below. Furthermore, what is done should avoid the catastrophe inherent in solving the problem of dS/dt = ∞ at S = 0 as stated to the author in a presentation he saw [33] [34] in Kochi, India, as a fault of classical GR which should be avoided. One of the main ways to perhaps solve this will be to pay attention to what Unnikrishnan [35] put up in 2009 at ISEG, Kochi, India, i.e. his article about the purported one way speed of light, and its impact upon perhaps a restatement of T(u, v). A re statement of how to evaluate T(u, v) may permit a proper frame of reference to close the gap between entropy values as given in Equations (25) and Equations (26) above.

By necessity, entropy will be examined, using the equivalence between number of operations which Seth Lloyd used in his model, and total units of entropy as the author referenced from Carroll, and other theorists. The key equation Lloyd [2] wrote is, assuming a low entropy value in the beginning

Lloyd is making a direct reference to a linkage between the number of operations a quantum computer model of how the Universe evolves is responsible for, in the onset of a big bang picture, and entropy. If Equation (27) is accepted then the issue is what is the unit of operation, i.e. the mechanism involved for an operation for assembling a graviton, and can that be reconciled with T(0, 0) as could be read from Equation (28) below.

What needs to be understood and evaluated is, if there is a re structuring of an appropriate frame of reference for T(u, v) and its resultant effects upon how to reconcile black hole entropy, a.k.a. Equation (25) with Equation (26) and Equation (27). A good place to start would be to obtain T(u, v) values which are consistent with slides on the two way versus one way light speed presentation of the ISEG 2009 conference. We wish to obtain T(u, v) values properly analyzed with respect to early universe metrics, and PROPERLY extrapolated to today so that ZPE energy extraction, as pursued by many, will be the model for an emergent field development of entropy. Note the easiest version of T(u, v) as presented by [36] Wald. If metric g(a, b) is for curved space time, the simplest matter energy stress tensor is (Klein Gordon)

What is affected by Unnikrishnan’s presented (2009) [35] hypothesis is how to keep g(a, b) properly linked observationally to a Machian universe frame of reference, not the discredited aether, via CMBR spectra behavior. If the above equation is held to be appropriate, and then elaborated upon, the developed T(u, v) expression should adhere to Wald’s unitary equivalence principle. The structure of unitary equivalence is foundational to space time maps, and Wald states it as being

While stating this, it is important to keep in mind that Wald defines [36]

We defined the operation, where A is a bounded operator, and < > an inner product via use of [36]

The job will be to keep this same equivalence relationship intact for space time, no matter what is done with the metric g(a, b) in the T(a, b) expressions we work with, which will be elaborations of Equation (28) above.