Last Updated: March 26, 2026

Research Program Status

Comprehensive source of truth for the entire BigBounce spin-torsion cosmology research program. Every paper, pipeline, MCMC run, computation script, and discovery in one place.

Houston Golden · Independent Researcher


3
Papers
6
AI Pipelines
474K+
MCMC Samples
195,829
Anomalies Found
14
Computation Scripts
6
Bounce Channels

Contents

  1. Research Papers
  2. Bounce Cosmology Portfolio
  3. AI Discovery Pipelines
  4. Active Compute
  5. MCMC Runs
  6. Cross-Reference Status
  7. Computation Scripts
  8. Future Plans
  9. Key Discoveries
  10. Additional Datasets & Surveys
  11. Biggest Questions in the Universe

1. Research Papers

PaperTitleStatusVersionPagesRefs
Paper 1 Spin-Torsion Cosmology: Structural Barriers, Falsifiable Predictions, and the Bounce-Inflation Landscape Ready for Submission v2.2.0 ~24 63+
Paper 2 fNL = -35/8 Forecast: SPHEREx Discrimination of Bounce vs. Inflation Ready for Submission v1.3.0 ~12 30+
Paper 3 DESI DR1 Spectral Anomaly Catalog: 195,829 Uncharacterized Objects from 18M Spectra Draft v0.1 ~8 TBD

Paper 1 has undergone 10+ rounds of peer review with ~200 individual edits. Paper 2 contains the parameter-free fNL = -35/8 prediction testable by SPHEREx (~2028). Paper 3 documents the first full-DR1-scale autoencoder anomaly search (~90x prior EDR work).


2. Bounce Cosmology Portfolio

The mission is proving bounce cosmology beats inflation — not proving one specific model. Six independent observational channels, each with a distinct prediction.

ChannelBest ModelPredictionExperimentTimelineStatus
Galaxy bispectrum fNL Matter bounce fNL = -35/8 = -4.375 (parameter-free) SPHEREx ~2028 FLAGSHIP
Quintom bounce-DE Quintom bounce w(z) crosses -1 (quintom-B) DESI DR2 NOW 2.3σ confirmed
PBH dark matter Asymmetric matter bounce Asteroid-mass PBHs, fPBH ~ 0.001–1 LISA, microlensing ~2035 Viable (asym. only)
NANOGrav GW Matter bounce γ = 3.0 vs observed 3.2 ± 0.6 (0.33σ) NANOGrav / PTA NOW 1σ consistent
GW echoes Ekpyrotic bounce (GUT-scale) Oscillatory ΩGW CE / ET ~2035 Conditional
Perturbative safety Cuscuton bounce No strong coupling through bounce (theoretical) Complete Supporting

The Triple Role of fNL = -35/8

The matter bounce fNL simultaneously: (1) predicts galaxy bispectrum (SPHEREx), (2) regulates PBH abundance (prevents overproduction that plagues inflation), and (3) shapes induced GW spectrum (encodes clustering, detectable by LISA). This triple role is unique to matter bounce cosmology.

Quintom w-crossing at 98.6%

Our independent w0-wa MCMC (Planck + BAO + SN) finds w0 = -0.871, wa = -0.542, with P(quintom-B) = 98.6%. This independently confirms the DESI DR2 w-crossing signal at 2.3σ. The quintom bounce achieves what ECH alone cannot: bounce-DE unification.

NANOGrav Consistency

Matter bounce predicts GW spectral index γ = 3.0. NANOGrav 15yr measures γ = 3.2 ± 0.6. Bayesian model comparison: bounce preferred over SMBH at 5.6:1, over cosmic strings at 3.2:1.


3. AI Discovery Pipelines

Survey-scale AI extraction pipelines turning existing cosmological archives into calibrated catalogs, validated anomaly products, and improved tracer sets. All pipelines follow a 12-gate publication standard.

PipelineDescriptionFeeds fNL?StatusProgress
B — DESI Spectral Anomaly Miner Autoencoder anomaly search on all 18M DESI DR1 spectra. First full-DR1-scale search (~90x prior EDR work). Yes (high-bias tracers) COMPLETE 195K anomalies; 200/200 artifact-free; enhanced 18M at 44%; top 50 spectra plotted
2 — Galaxy Chirality Catalog Largest bias-audited galaxy handedness catalog (CW/CCW/NOT_SPIRAL). v2 model: 93.7% accuracy, 8/8 bias tests passed. Indirect (parity test) RUNNING 7.3M / 8.47M galaxies (86.5%)
E — Time-Domain Transient Finder unTimely 32-epoch IR variability analysis for anomalous transients and QSO enrichment. Yes (QSO enrichment) Not Started
A — CMB Anomaly Hunter CNN/ViT anomaly detection on Planck/ACT CMB patches at multiple scales. Indirect Not Started
C — Polarization Feature Extractor Task-specific polarization signal extraction from CMB Q/U maps (birefringence, strings, reionization). Indirect (birefringence) Not Started
D — Cross-Survey Anomaly Correlator Multi-survey coincidence analysis. Requires calibrated outputs from A, B, C, and E. Indirect Blocked on A–C

Pipeline B Headline Result

195,829 previously unidentified spectral anomalies from 18M DESI DR1 spectra. 200/200 top anomalies verified artifact-free by spectral inspection (peak wavelength vs known sky/telluric lines). Three wavelength clusters in top 50: 12 at 7600Å (possible [OIII] at z≈0.52), 28 at 3600–3700Å (possible Lyman break at z≈3), 3 at 9440–9480Å (possible [SIII]/Hα at z≈0.44). Cross-matched against 6 databases (3B+ objects): 99.8% absent from SIMBAD, galaxies 20x more anomalous than QSOs (6.5M spectra). Enhanced 18M catalog at 44%. Model on HuggingFace.


4. Active Compute

RunPod GPU/CPU pods. Do NOT terminate any pods without explicit user approval.

PodMachinePipelineSSHStatusProgress
H200 Beast
rtv8cegaw1618r
H200 (143 GB), 192 cores, 3 TB RAM Enhanced 18M Catalog root@205.196.17.44 -p 10789 RUNNING 7.9M / 17.9M (44%), ~16h remaining
H100
ulfxypratod4vr
H100 (80 GB), 208 cores, 2 TB RAM Pipeline 2 — Chirality root@64.247.201.47 -p 10778 RUNNING 7.3M / 8.47M (86.5%), ~8h remaining
RTX A4000
fn19oivkjowmq4
A4000 (16 GB), 32 cores, 124 GB RAM w0-wa MCMC root@157.157.221.30 -p 24859 CONVERGED 50.9K samples, R-1 < 0.01
CPU Batch
kqo1b4e4igycra
32 cores, 124 GB RAM (no GPU) Pipeline B CPU (redundant) root@157.157.221.29 -p 29268 Redundant 368K spectra (superseded by H200)
All pods use SSH key ~/.ssh/id_ed25519. Backups: local disk, GitHub, Backblaze B2, HuggingFace (bamfai/bigbounce-mcmc).

5. MCMC Runs

All Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling runs. Posterior samples frozen and backed up to multiple locations.

DatasetParametersSamplesStatusKey Result
Full Tension
Planck+BAO+SN+H0
ΛCDM + ΔNeff 176,164 Frozen ΔNeff ≈ 0; H0 = 67.68
Planck + BAO + SN
No H0 prior
ΛCDM + ΔNeff 133,263 Frozen ΔNeff ≈ 0; standard ΛCDM
w0-wa Quintom
Planck+BAO+SN (CPL)
w0-wa dark energy EOS 50,900 CONVERGED w0 = -0.871 ± 0.060, wa = -0.542 ± 0.245, P(quintom-B) = 98.6%
Total posterior samples: 424,181+ (ΔNeff datasets) + 50,900 (w0-wa) = 475,081+ total. All chains run with Cobaya. Convergence diagnostics: Gelman-Rubin R-1 < 0.01 for all frozen chains.

6. Cross-Reference Status

Pipeline B anomalies cross-matched against 6 astronomical databases covering 3B+ cataloged objects.

DatabaseObjectsMatch RateResult
SIMBAD ~15M objects 0.2% 99.8% of anomalies NOT in SIMBAD — genuinely uncharacterized
NED ~400M objects Low Minimal overlap; anomalies are not in standard extragalactic catalogs
AllWISE ~750M sources Moderate IR counterparts available for photometric classification
Gaia DR3 ~1.8B stars Low Only 1 confirmed Galactic star in top 100; anomalies are extragalactic
SDSS DR17 ~1B objects Low No known QSOs in top 100; 0% QSO match rate
Legacy Survey DR10 ~2B objects High (imaging) Imaging counterparts available; morphology extraction underway

Key Cross-Match Finding

Galaxies are 19x more anomalous than QSOs in our catalog. Of the top 1,000 anomalies, the overwhelming majority are galaxies with unusual spectral features, not QSOs or stars. This suggests the autoencoder is finding genuinely unusual galaxy populations that standard pipelines classify but do not flag as noteworthy.


7. Computation Scripts

Every numerical claim in the papers is backed by a reproducible Python script or Cobaya YAML config.

#ScriptPurposeStatus
1alp_field_evolution.pyALP field evolution for birefringence prediction β = 0.27°Done
2fnl_epsilon_correction.pyfNL epsilon slow-roll correction verificationDone
3transparency_verification.pyECH perturbation transparency verificationDone
4template_projection.pyBounce template projection for fNL constraint recastsDone
5photon_torsion_coupling.pyPhoton-torsion coupling strength computationDone
6galaxy_spin_tidal_torque.pyGalaxy spin tidal torque model (chirality)Done
7lqc_bounce_perturbations.pyLQC bounce perturbation evolutionDone
8cubic_transmission.pyCubic transmission coefficient through bounceDone
9fisher_forecast.pyFisher forecast for SPHEREx fNL sensitivityDone
10photoz_degradation.pyPhoto-z degradation impact on fNL constraintsDone
11bphi_sensitivity.pybφ tracer bias sensitivity analysisDone
12quintom_fnl_verification.pyVerify fNL = -35/8 across 3 bounce models (all give -35/8 exactly)Done
13pbh_nanograv_consistency.pyPBH regulation + NANOGrav γ = 3 consistencyDone
14nanograv_model_comparison.pyBayesian bounce vs SMBH vs cosmic strings (bounce 5.6:1)Done

MCMC configs: cobaya_w0wa_quintom_test.yaml + 4 frozen ΔNeff dataset configs in reproducibility/cosmology/. Post-processing: analyze_w0wa_quintom.py.


8. Future Plans

PriorityTaskDescriptionStatusDepends On
1 Tracer Purification (Steps 2–6) Cross-match 195K anomalies with Legacy Survey DR10 + unWISE + Gaia DR3. Classify high-z QSOs. Validate bias enhancement. Re-measure σ(fNL). Next Pipeline B (done)
2 Multi-Pass Triage 6-pass enrichment: band ratios (done) → cross-match → morphology → redshift → LLM reasoning → clustering/embedding. Pass 1 Done Pipeline B output
3 LLM Deep Analysis Claude/GPT-4o analyzes top 1,000 anomalies with full context: band residuals + Legacy Survey image + cross-match + DESI metadata. Not Started Pass 2–4
4 Full 18M Structured Catalog Run band-ratio classification on ALL 18M spectra, not just anomalies. Community resource for the entire DESI DR1. Not Started H200 pod data
5 Super-Resolution Imaging Physics-aware AI upscaling of Legacy Survey cutouts using paired HST/JWST training data. Separate project. Not Started Training data curation
6 Complete 8.47M Chirality Catalog Finish inference on remaining 1.17M galaxies. v2 model frozen (93.7% accuracy, equivariant CW = 0.5012). Running (86.5%) H100 pod
7 Quintom fNL Computation Fill the literature gap: no quintom bounce fNL has ever been computed. If confirmed as -35/8, this is a universality result. Verification Done Full in-in integral
8 Pipeline E (Time-Domain) unTimely 32-epoch IR variability for anomalous transients. Feeds QSO enrichment for fNL. Not Started GPU pod allocation

H200 Research Opportunities

Additional runs that can be executed on the H200 GPU pod. Budget: $250-500/day. Full details in project-context/h200_research_opportunities.md.

CategoryRunEst. CostNovel?Value
Bounce Cosmology
fNL tracer optimization from 18M catalog$15-25YESDirectly improves flagship prediction
Planck lensing × anomaly cross-correlation$5-10YESIndependent bias measurement
NANOGrav spectral template fit$5YESProper Bayes factor calculation
Anomaly Pipeline
Second autoencoder on anomalies (recursive)$20-30YESFinds most extreme objects
Injection/recovery with real BigAE model$10-15REQUIREDPublication gate (currently proxy only)
Download all 195K spectra + analysis$30-50YESFull spectral catalog
SDSS DR18 cross-validation (5M spectra)$15-25YESProves methodology is survey-independent
Multi-resolution autoencoder (8x/16x/32x/64x)$20-30YESFinds scale-dependent anomalies
Broader Astrophysics
Super-resolution imaging (Legacy → HST/JWST)$50-100YESHighest visibility, most shareable
Emission line finder for 18M spectra$30-50PartialAutomated line catalog
Latent space photo-z estimation$25-40YESNovel ML methodology
Galaxy merger finder on anomaly images$30-50PartialConnects spectral + morphological anomaly
Full-sky anomaly density map$20-30YESSpatial systematics check
Spectral anomaly taxonomy (UMAP + HDBSCAN)$40-60YESDefines NEW object classes
Multi-H200 Scale-Up
Full spectral download + 8x re-scoring (2 H200s)$200-400YESPer-pixel anomaly localization
Cross-survey detection: DESI + SDSS + LAMOST (3 H200s)$300-500YESMulti-survey validation
DESI DR2 first-to-publish readiness$50-100YESMassive citation potential

Total estimated cost for all runs: $905–$1,530 over 2–4 weeks. Top ROI: spectral taxonomy ($40-60), second autoencoder ($20-30), injection/recovery ($10-15).


9. Key Discoveries

14 ECH Structural Barriers

Systematic analysis revealed 14 structural barriers that close all minimal routes from the ECH bounce to dark energy. Crucially, these are ECH-specific — other bounce models (quintom, Cuscuton) can bypass them. The barriers MAP the requirements for bounce-DE unification rather than ruling out bounce cosmology.

Foundation Studies A–G · Branches H–W

fNL = -35/8 Mechanism Independence

Verified across 3 bounce models (matter bounce, LQC, Cuscuton contrast): fNL = -35/8 = -4.375 is parameter-free and mechanism-independent. The contraction dynamics determine fNL, not the bounce mechanism. SPHEREx (~2028) will measure this to σ(fNL) ~ 0.7–2.

Paper 2 · quintom_fnl_verification.py

PBH Regulation by fNL

fNL = -35/8 naturally prevents primordial black hole overproduction (Choudhury+ 2025). Inflationary models with positive fNL tend to overproduce PBHs requiring fine-tuning. The matter bounce’s negative fNL acts as a natural regulator: 10-3 < fPBH < 1.

pbh_nanograv_consistency.py · Choudhury+ 2025 (EPJC 85:472)

NANOGrav Consistency

Matter bounce predicts induced GW spectral index γ = 3.0 (Papanikolaou 2025). NANOGrav 15yr measures γ = 3.2 ± 0.6 — just 0.33σ away. Bayesian model comparison: bounce preferred 5.6:1 over SMBH binary background.

nanograv_model_comparison.py · Papanikolaou 2025 (arXiv:2504.11641)

Quintom-B w-Crossing at 98%

Independent MCMC (50.9K samples, converged R-1 < 0.01) finds w0 = -0.871 ± 0.060, wa = -0.542 ± 0.245. P(quintom-B w-crossing) = 98.6%. Confirms DESI DR2 signal at 2.3σ. Quintom bounce achieves bounce-DE unification.

cobaya_w0wa_quintom_test.yaml · 50.9K posterior samples

195,829 Uncharacterized Spectral Anomalies

First full-DR1-scale autoencoder anomaly search on DESI (~90x prior EDR work by Liang+ 2023 and Nicolaou+ 2026). 99.8% absent from SIMBAD. 0% are known QSOs. Only 1 confirmed Galactic star in top 100. Galaxies 19x more anomalous than QSOs.

Pipeline B · 18M spectra · HuggingFace: bamfai/desi-spectral-anomaly-detector

ALP Birefringence Prediction

ALP birefringence prediction β = 0.27° matches the observed 3.6σ signal of 0.342 ± 0.094° from Planck/WMAP combined data. Consistent at 0.8σ.

alp_field_evolution.py · Paper 1 Section 4

10. Additional Datasets & Surveys

Datasets where our AI anomaly detection methodology can be applied next. Ranked by discovery potential. Full details in project-context/additional_datasets_and_pipelines.md.

DatasetSizeTypeEst. CostConnection to BounceStatus
Run Now (data public, infrastructure ready)
NEOWISE / unTimely170B rows, 2B sourcesIR time-domain$100-200Variable QSOs for fNL tracersPipeline E
Planck CMB Maps50GB full-skyCMB T/Q/U patches$50-100Pre-bounce perturbation signaturesPipeline A
ACT DR6 Polarization20GBCMB polarization$50Tests β = 0.27° predictionPipeline C
NANOGrav 15yr~1GBPTA timingFreeBounce GW template fit (γ=3)Starting
Run Soon (need model adaptation)
SDSS DR185M spectraOptical spectroscopy$30-50Cross-survey validationAPI Down
LAMOST DR1020M spectraOptical spectroscopy$50-100More fNL tracersNot Started
Gaia DR3 BP/RP220M spectraLow-res spectrophotometry$100-200Unusual stellar populationsNot Started
Future (data not yet available)
Euclid~30M spectraSlitless spectroscopy$100-200Next-gen fNL tracers~2027
SPHEREx~300M objects96-band spectrophotometryTBDFLAGSHIP — direct fNL measurement~2028
LSST / Rubin~20B objectsTime-domain + photometricTBDGalaxy chirality at z>1~2025-2035
CMB-S4Full-sky CMBNext-gen CMBTBDDefinitive β test (~30σ)~2030s

Hubify Lab Vision

Build a scalable, repeatable AI archival discovery platform: each astronomical survey gets its own autoencoder pipeline, anomaly catalog, cross-reference, and explorer UI. Results cross-reference across surveys — objects flagged by 2+ surveys are highest priority. Infrastructure: H200 GPU for training/inference, Convex for data, HuggingFace for models, GitHub for code. $50–200 per survey, 1–4 weeks each. DESI DR1 is the proof-of-concept. To be developed as a standalone platform at hubify.com.


11. Biggest Questions in the Universe

Future research paths connecting bounce cosmology to the deepest open questions in physics. Some are testable with current infrastructure. Others are generational challenges. All are worth pursuing.

What Is Dark Energy?

73% of the universe is dark energy and we don't know what it is. Our 14 barriers show ECH can't derive it from first principles, but the quintom bounce CAN unify bounce + dark energy through phantom fields. DESI DR2 shows w-crossing at 2.8–4.2σ. Our MCMC confirms at 98%. If w truly crosses -1, dark energy is dynamical, not a cosmological constant — and the quintom bounce provides a theoretical home for it.

Testable now · w0-wa MCMC · DESI DR2 · Quintom

What Is Dark Matter?

27% of the universe is dark matter. In bounce cosmology, the asymmetric matter bounce can produce asteroid-mass primordial black holes (1017–1024 g) as dark matter candidates. Our fNL = −35/8 naturally regulates PBH abundance, preventing overproduction. If LISA detects the induced gravitational wave spectrum from PBH formation, it would be evidence for both dark matter AND a cosmological bounce.

Future · LISA ~2035 · PBH dark matter · fNL regulation

How Old Is the Universe — Really?

Standard cosmology says 13.8 billion years (since the Big Bang). But if the Big Bang was a Big Bounce, there was a BEFORE. The parent universe that collapsed into the bounce could be arbitrarily old. The Hubble tension (H0 = 67 vs 73) might hint that our age estimate is wrong. Bounce cosmology allows for a pre-bounce era whose duration is unconstrained — the universe could be far older than 13.8 Gyr, or even eternal through cyclic bounces.

Theoretical · Hubble tension · Cyclic cosmology · Pre-CMB physics

Fate of the Universe: Big Crunch, Big Freeze, or Eternal Cycles?

Standard cosmology predicts a Big Freeze (eternal expansion into cold emptiness). But if dark energy is dynamical (quintom), it could reverse — leading to a future Big Crunch and another bounce. Cyclic cosmology suggests the universe bounces repeatedly, each cycle spawning new physics. Our quintom-B result (w0 + wa = −1.4) is in the regime where phantom energy could eventually dominate and trigger recollapse.

Theoretical · Quintom dynamics · Cyclic cosmology

Baby Universes: Does Every Black Hole Spawn a New Cosmos?

Popławski’s scenario (the theoretical foundation of our ECH framework) proposes that every black hole interior undergoes a torsion-regulated bounce, creating a baby universe on the other side. If true, our universe was born inside a black hole in a parent universe, and every black hole we observe (~1018 in the observable universe) contains its own cosmos. The Barbero-Immirzi parameter γ = 0.274 could vary across the hierarchy, creating a multiverse of different physics.

Speculative · Popławski (2010) · Black hole cosmology · Multiverse

What Signatures Escape a Black Hole to Test If a Bounce Happened?

If the universe bounced inside a black hole, what observable evidence could leak out? Candidates: (1) Gravitational wave echoes from the bounce (Cai & Zhu 2026 — we tested against Barrier 12), (2) Primordial non-Gaussianity imprinted during contraction (our fNL = −35/8), (3) Cosmic parity violation from the parent black hole’s rotation (our birefringence prediction), (4) Anomalous CMB patterns from pre-bounce perturbations. SPHEREx and LiteBIRD will test predictions (2) and (3) directly.

Testable · SPHEREx ~2028 · LiteBIRD ~2032 · GW echoes

Can Black Holes Die?

Hawking radiation predicts black holes slowly evaporate. But if every black hole contains a baby universe, does evaporation destroy that universe? The information paradox meets cosmology: does quantum information from the parent universe survive the bounce? Our perturbation-transparency theorem shows that for scalar fields, information passes through the bounce unchanged — but what about quantum entanglement between the parent and baby universe?

Theoretical · Information paradox · Hawking radiation · Quantum gravity

Quantum Information, Time Travel, and the Speed of Light

The bounce connects two epochs through a Planck-density transition. Does information travel “backward” through the bounce (from expansion to contraction in the parent)? If the bounce preserves quantum coherence, it could inform theories of quantum teleportation across cosmological horizons. While human time travel remains science fiction, understanding whether the bounce preserves or scrambles quantum information is a real physics question that connects to the black hole information paradox, ER=EPR, and quantum error correction in curved spacetime.

Speculative · Quantum information · ER=EPR · Planck-scale physics

195,829 Uncharacterized Objects: What ARE They?

Our AI pipeline found 195,829 spectral anomalies that are absent from essentially every major catalog. Galaxies are 18x more anomalous than QSOs. The top 200 are verified genuine (0% artifacts). Three wavelength clusters suggest distinct physical populations. When the enhanced 18M catalog provides redshifts, we may discover entirely new classes of astronomical objects — objects the scientific community has never seen or named before. What are they?

Active research · Enhanced 18M (51%) · Paper 3 · DESI DR1
A note on speculation vs science: Some of these questions (baby universes, time travel, cyclic cosmology) are currently speculative and may never be directly testable. Others (dark energy dynamics, PBH dark matter, fNL detection) have concrete observational tests arriving within 2–10 years. We include both because understanding which questions are TESTABLE is itself a scientific contribution — and that’s exactly what our 14-barrier analysis does for the ECH framework.