Turnaround

turnaround

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro
The cosmological model
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References Abstract Keywords: oscillating universe, braneworld, bounce, turnaround, phantom. 1. Introduction The standard big bang model of cosmology is plagued by an initial singularity (at time t = 0), where the Friedmann equations describing the time evolution of the universe fails to render a plausible physical description of the space-time dynamics due to the diverging Hubble parameter H, which is a consequence of the infinitely large energy density prevailing in the very early universe. The scalar curvature R also diverges, implying that the initial singularity is a curvature singularity of the Ricci type, which are characterized by diverging energy densities. As shown in their famous singularity theorems by Hawking and Penrose, the initial big bang singularity cannot be avoided in a general relativistic (GR) setup provided the energy conditions are obeyed by matter filling up the universe[4, 5]. One of the key problems of the standard inflationary cosmology, besidies the ambiguity regarding the nature of the inflaton field is that, within the GR framework, inflation can not be past eternal[6]. So, if the inflation is preceeded by a radiation dominated phase, then the origin of the universe is singular. However, today many cosmologists are unhappy about the initial singularity and consider it to be a limitation of GR to describe space-times involving very large energy densities. If there is no big bang, then the possibilities are that the universe either experiences a quantum creation where there is a quantum mechanical tunelling into an inflationary phase, or it may be that the universe existed for an eternally long time in a quasi static state followed by an emergent inflationary phase, or there is a non-singular bounce replacing the singular big bang prior to which the universe contracts and following which the universe expands. In the context of GR, the emergent and bouncing scenarios can be realised effectively only for a spatially closed universe (k = 1). A fully consistent treatment of the first possibility considering quantum creation will most probably require a quantum gravity (QG) treatment. However, there is no fully understood and developed QG theory at the moment and the two most accepted theories being worked on in this context are M-theory[7] involving extra dimensions and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)[8]. M- theory requires eleven space-time dimension for its quantum consistency while LQG quantizes space-time itself in the usual four dimensions. Effective theories from both the scenarios have become popular in recent times in the form of the extra dimensional braneworld models[9, 10] and the effective loop quantum cosmology (LQC)[11, 12] models. It is interesting to note that although the premises of the background QG theories are completely different from each other, there are some similarities and identical features that may be obtained from a class of the effective braneworld and LQC models, that may hint at some hidden correspondance between the two contrasting approaches. In this letter, we shall only talk about models that introduce corrections to standard GR at the ultraviolet (UV) scale as we are concerned with resolution of the initial singularity. Braneworld models have the feature that our universe is represented by a (3 + 1)-dimensional hypersurface known as the ’brane’ (which are objects appearing in M-theory) embedded in a higher dimensional bulk spacetime. The Randall Sundrum single brane model (RS-II) is one such model with a spacelike extra dimension, indicating that the signature of the bulk space is Lorentzian. If the signature of the bulk deviates from the former, then we can have a bulk signature (−, −, +, +, +) such that the braneworld has a timelike extra dimension. The standard model particles and fields are confined to the brane, while gravity is free to propagate in the bulk. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro The cosmological model Discussion Acknowledgments References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro The cosmological model The cosmological model Discussion Discussion Acknowledgments Acknowledgments References References Abstract Keywords : oscillating universe, braneworld, bounce, turnaround, phantom. Keywords 1. Introduction The standard big bang model of cosmology is plagued by an initial singularity (at time t = 0), where the Friedmann equations describing the time evolution of the universe fails to render a plausible physical description of the space-time dynamics due to the diverging Hubble parameter H, which is a consequence of the infinitely large energy density prevailing in the very early universe. The scalar curvature R also diverges, implying that the initial singularity is a curvature singularity of the Ricci type, which are characterized by diverging energy densities. As shown in their famous singularity theorems by Hawking and Penrose, the initial big bang singularity cannot be avoided in a general relativistic (GR) setup provided the energy conditions are obeyed by matter filling up the universe[4, 5]. One of the key problems of the standard inflationary cosmology, besidies the ambiguity regarding the nature of the inflaton field is that, within the GR framework, inflation can not be past eternal[6]. So, if the inflation is preceeded by a radiation dominated phase, then the origin of the universe is singular. However, today many cosmologists are unhappy about the initial singularity and consider it to be a limitation of GR to describe space-times involving very large energy densities. If there is no big bang, then the possibilities are that the universe either experiences a quantum creation where there is a quantum mechanical tunelling into an inflationary phase, or it may be that the universe existed for an eternally long time in a quasi static state followed by an emergent inflationary phase, or there is a non-singular bounce replacing the singular big bang prior to which the universe contracts and following which the universe expands. In the context of GR, the emergent and bouncing scenarios can be realised effectively only for a spatially closed universe (k = 1). A fully consistent treatment of the first possibility considering quantum creation will most probably require a quantum gravity (QG) treatment. However, there is no fully understood and developed QG theory at the moment and the two most accepted theories being worked on in this context are M-theory[7] involving extra dimensions and Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG)[8]. M- theory requires eleven space-time dimension for its quantum consistency while LQG quantizes space-time itself in the usual four dimensions. Effective theories from both the scenarios have become popular in recent times in the form of the extra dimensional braneworld models[9, 10] and the effective loop quantum cosmology (LQC)[11, 12] models. It is interesting to note that although the premises of the background QG theories are completely different from each other, there are some similarities and identical features that may be obtained from a class of the effective braneworld and LQC models, that may hint at some hidden correspondance between the two contrasting approaches. In this letter, we shall only talk about models that introduce corrections to standard GR at the ultraviolet (UV) scale as we are concerned with resolution of the initial singularity. Braneworld models have the feature that our universe is represented by a (3 + 1)-dimensional hypersurface known as the ’brane’ (which are objects appearing in M-theory) embedded in a higher dimensional bulk spacetime. The Randall Sundrum single brane model (RS-II) is one such model with a spacelike extra dimension, indicating that the signature of the bulk space is Lorentzian. If the signature of the bulk deviates from the former, then we can have a bulk signature (−, −, +, +, +) such that the braneworld has a timelike extra dimension. The standard model particles and fields are confined to the brane, while gravity is free to propagate in the bulk.

Non-singular Oscillating Cosmology on Randall-Sundrum II: Abstract and Intro

র‌্যান্ডাল-সান্ড্রাম II-এ নন-সিঙ্গুলার অসিলেটিং কসমোলজি: অ্যাবস্ট্রাক্ট এবং ইন্ট্রো

Nicht-singuläre oszillierende Kosmologie auf Randall-Sundrum II: Zusammenfassung und Einführung

Cosmología oscilante no singular en Randall-Sundrum II: resumen e introducción

Cosmologie oscillante non singulière sur Randall-Sundrum II : résumé et introduction

रैंडल-सुंड्रम II पर गैर-विलक्षण दोलन ब्रह्मांड विज्ञान: सार और परिचय

ランドール・サンドラム II における非特異振動宇宙論: 概要と序論

Randall-Sundrum II의 비특이 진동 우주론: 요약 및 소개

Cosmologia Oscilante Não Singular em Randall-Sundrum II: Resumo e Introdução

Несингулярная осциллирующая космология по Рэндаллу-Сундраму II: Аннотация и введение

Randall-Sundrum II'de Tekil Olmayan Salınımlı Kozmoloji: Özet ve Giriş

Vũ trụ dao động không đơn lẻ trên Randall-Sundrum II: Tóm tắt và giới thiệu

Randall-Sundrum II 上的非奇异振荡宇宙学：摘要和简介

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro
The cosmological model
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References 3. Discussion When the universe is contracting, the energy density grows and ultimately diverges making the scalar curvature and the Hubble parameter to diverge as well. This can be understood by the fact that the scale factor vanishes in the Friedmann equation. Bounce is the mechanism that simply prevents the initial singularity from forming by making the scale factor begin to increase before it can reach zero or making the energy density drop off before it can diverge. The condition for bounce is achieved through ¨a > 0, such that the contracting universe starts expanding. Alternatively, in turnaround, the expanding universe must begin to start contracting so that both the scale factor and energy density do not diverge in the finite future and this can be achieved through the condition ¨a < 0. Both at the bounce and turnaround, the Hubble parameter vanishes rather than diverging. The the scale factor neither reaches zero or infinite value as the effective energy density on the brane remains finite. Thus, the universe transits smoothly through both the bounce and turnaround. For cosmology on the brane, both the mechanisms can be achieved by a minimum of requisite components- a scalar field with an inflationary potential and a DE component that violates the NEC. The problem with the phantom is that such an exotic fluid has a number of theoretical inconsitencies and pathologies at the quantum level that makes their existence questionable. The problem with the future singularities can be cured from the correction term on the brane as we have found, but such a fluid may also lead to the vacuum being unstable. Attempts to construct dynamical scalar field models of the phantom have led to a negative kinetic term[25] that in turn results in quantum instabilities[30]. However, there exists a cosmological model of DE with vanishing Λ where the vacuum energy obtained from the quantization of a free scalar field having low mass is described by a supernegative EoS and the model is free of pathologies at the quantum level[31]. Two problems in general feature in most oscillating cosmology models. We shall discuss them very briefly without going into much details before concluding the letter. The first problem is posed by the continued existence of singular objects like black holes from the area theorems of Hawking. However, before the turnaround leading up to the next bounce (via a contraction phase) in a phantom dominated universe, such structures may well be dissolved due to the extremely large gravitationally repulsive effects[32], thus being prevented from disrupting the evolution of the universe during the contracting phase following the turnaround. Infact, it has been shown that[33] the Hawking area theorems may not hold true if the NEC (ρ + p ≥ 0) is violated, as is the case for a phantom dominated universe. Any surviving remnant microscopic black holes may act as possible dark matter candidates. Moreover, the black hole singularity may also be resolved in the UV corrected picture just like the initial big bang and the big rip singularities and also, there may exist non-singular black hole mimickers like gravastar on the brane[34], leading to a complete resolution of the problem at once. It is worth mentioning in this context that the RSII braneworld has also been used in explaining a recent GW event GW170817[35] and the recent observation of the dark shadow of M87∗ [36]. The second problem is associated with the entropy of the universe, which we think remains the same in a periodic manner after the bounce over each cycle, such that the possible increase in entropy during the expanding phase being compensated by a possible decreasing during the radiation/matter dominated expanding phase. This prevents the enrtopy to increase to infinitely large values limiting the number of cycles. We are however concerned mainly with the bounce and turnaround in a single cycle in this letter. This is the first model that can avert the initial singularity using a single brane approach with a positive brane tension. Braneworlds that have a space-like extra dimension like the one we have considered here are characterized by a positive brane tension (as the effective gravitational constant on the brane needs to be positive to explain the attractive nature of gravity) but such a setup could not resolve the big bang singularity. The non-singular models of brane cosmology till date have either resorted to a single brane with time-like extra dimension where no scalar field has to be invoked to generate the bounce which happens naturally from the cosmological dynamics[10], but the brane tension must be negative for the same reason of obtaining a positive effective gravitational constant, or alternatively, introduce a second braneworld with a negative tension parallel to the positive tension brane with finite separation between the branes. The advantage of introducing the parallel negative tension braneworld is two-fold: firstly, negative tension branes have the unique feature of reduced inertia on matter with positive energy density being dumped onto it helping the dynamical realization, and secondly the two brane setup comes with the benefit of a scalar field known as the radion which modulates the inter-brane separation and can both source the bounce at early times as well as behave like phantom dark energy at late times dure to the non-canonical kinetic term evolving to have a negative value[37]. However, there are some tachyonic instabilities associated with negative tension braneworlds which can be possibly resolved in M-theory but has not been explored well enough and requires further formal developments in M-theory (although the properties are really appealing). On the contrary, the ingredients of our model are well explored and the physics is more well understood in terms of a single positive tension brane. The phantom dark energy also does not lead up to the big rip as the quadratic correction to stress energy becomes significant before the singularity can is reached. Also, the scalar field we have used is a physically well motivated one, since it can accommodate the inflationary scenario naturally and its potential need not be reconstructed to explain the generation of seed cosmological perturbations. Most models of cosmology with a nonsingular bounce have either to resort to alternative mechanisms to generate seed perturbations that are not very well understood physically, or have to reconstruct the potential on an ad hoc basis to generate the perturbations, but in our model an inflationary epoch following the bounce driven by the scalar field with an inflationary emergent potential already has all the ingredients responsible for generating these perturbations, and is well understood. We may think of it as a toy model, not because the scenario is physically ill-motivated, but since we have not tested the model against observations. We plan to analyze the primordial observables like the amplitude of scalar perturbations, tensor to scalar ratio and the spectral index and test them against latest observations in a follow up work in the recent future. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro The cosmological model Discussion Acknowledgments References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro The cosmological model The cosmological model Discussion Discussion Acknowledgments Acknowledgments References References 3. Discussion When the universe is contracting, the energy density grows and ultimately diverges making the scalar curvature and the Hubble parameter to diverge as well. This can be understood by the fact that the scale factor vanishes in the Friedmann equation. Bounce is the mechanism that simply prevents the initial singularity from forming by making the scale factor begin to increase before it can reach zero or making the energy density drop off before it can diverge. The condition for bounce is achieved through ¨a > 0, such that the contracting universe starts expanding. Alternatively, in turnaround, the expanding universe must begin to start contracting so that both the scale factor and energy density do not diverge in the finite future and this can be achieved through the condition ¨a < 0. Both at the bounce and turnaround, the Hubble parameter vanishes rather than diverging. The the scale factor neither reaches zero or infinite value as the effective energy density on the brane remains finite. Thus, the universe transits smoothly through both the bounce and turnaround. For cosmology on the brane, both the mechanisms can be achieved by a minimum of requisite components- a scalar field with an inflationary potential and a DE component that violates the NEC. The problem with the phantom is that such an exotic fluid has a number of theoretical inconsitencies and pathologies at the quantum level that makes their existence questionable. The problem with the future singularities can be cured from the correction term on the brane as we have found, but such a fluid may also lead to the vacuum being unstable. Attempts to construct dynamical scalar field models of the phantom have led to a negative kinetic term[25] that in turn results in quantum instabilities[30]. However, there exists a cosmological model of DE with vanishing Λ where the vacuum energy obtained from the quantization of a free scalar field having low mass is described by a supernegative EoS and the model is free of pathologies at the quantum level[31]. Two problems in general feature in most oscillating cosmology models. We shall discuss them very briefly without going into much details before concluding the letter. The first problem is posed by the continued existence of singular objects like black holes from the area theorems of Hawking. However, before the turnaround leading up to the next bounce (via a contraction phase) in a phantom dominated universe, such structures may well be dissolved due to the extremely large gravitationally repulsive effects[32], thus being prevented from disrupting the evolution of the universe during the contracting phase following the turnaround. Infact, it has been shown that[33] the Hawking area theorems may not hold true if the NEC (ρ + p ≥ 0) is violated, as is the case for a phantom dominated universe. Any surviving remnant microscopic black holes may act as possible dark matter candidates. Moreover, the black hole singularity may also be resolved in the UV corrected picture just like the initial big bang and the big rip singularities and also, there may exist non-singular black hole mimickers like gravastar on the brane[34], leading to a complete resolution of the problem at once. It is worth mentioning in this context that the RSII braneworld has also been used in explaining a recent GW event GW170817[35] and the recent observation of the dark shadow of M87∗ [36]. The second problem is associated with the entropy of the universe, which we think remains the same in a periodic manner after the bounce over each cycle, such that the possible increase in entropy during the expanding phase being compensated by a possible decreasing during the radiation/matter dominated expanding phase. This prevents the enrtopy to increase to infinitely large values limiting the number of cycles. We are however concerned mainly with the bounce and turnaround in a single cycle in this letter. This is the first model that can avert the initial singularity using a single brane approach with a positive brane tension. Braneworlds that have a space-like extra dimension like the one we have considered here are characterized by a positive brane tension (as the effective gravitational constant on the brane needs to be positive to explain the attractive nature of gravity) but such a setup could not resolve the big bang singularity. The non-singular models of brane cosmology till date have either resorted to a single brane with time-like extra dimension where no scalar field has to be invoked to generate the bounce which happens naturally from the cosmological dynamics[10], but the brane tension must be negative for the same reason of obtaining a positive effective gravitational constant, or alternatively, introduce a second braneworld with a negative tension parallel to the positive tension brane with finite separation between the branes. The advantage of introducing the parallel negative tension braneworld is two-fold: firstly, negative tension branes have the unique feature of reduced inertia on matter with positive energy density being dumped onto it helping the dynamical realization, and secondly the two brane setup comes with the benefit of a scalar field known as the radion which modulates the inter-brane separation and can both source the bounce at early times as well as behave like phantom dark energy at late times dure to the non-canonical kinetic term evolving to have a negative value[37]. However, there are some tachyonic instabilities associated with negative tension braneworlds which can be possibly resolved in M-theory but has not been explored well enough and requires further formal developments in M-theory (although the properties are really appealing). On the contrary, the ingredients of our model are well explored and the physics is more well understood in terms of a single positive tension brane. The phantom dark energy also does not lead up to the big rip as the quadratic correction to stress energy becomes significant before the singularity can is reached. Also, the scalar field we have used is a physically well motivated one, since it can accommodate the inflationary scenario naturally and its potential need not be reconstructed to explain the generation of seed cosmological perturbations. Most models of cosmology with a nonsingular bounce have either to resort to alternative mechanisms to generate seed perturbations that are not very well understood physically, or have to reconstruct the potential on an ad hoc basis to generate the perturbations, but in our model an inflationary epoch following the bounce driven by the scalar field with an inflationary emergent potential already has all the ingredients responsible for generating these perturbations, and is well understood. We may think of it as a toy model, not because the scenario is physically ill-motivated, but since we have not tested the model against observations. We plan to analyze the primordial observables like the amplitude of scalar perturbations, tensor to scalar ratio and the spectral index and test them against latest observations in a follow up work in the recent future.

Non-singular Oscillating Cosmology on Randall-Sundrum II: Discussion

নন-সিঙ্গুলার অসিলেটিং কসমোলজি অন র‍্যান্ডাল-সান্ড্রাম II: আলোচনা

Nicht-singuläre oszillierende Kosmologie auf Randall-Sundrum II: Diskussion

Cosmología oscilante no singular en Randall-Sundrum II: discusión

Cosmologie oscillante non singulière sur Randall-Sundrum II : discussion

रैंडल-सुंड्रम II पर गैर-विलक्षण दोलन ब्रह्मांड विज्ञान: चर्चा

ランドール・サンドラム II における非特異振動宇宙論: 議論

Randall-Sundrum II에 관한 비특이 진동 우주론: 토론

Cosmologia Oscilante Não Singular em Randall-Sundrum II: Discussão

Несингулярная осциллирующая космология на Рэндалле-Сундраме II: обсуждение

Randall-Sundrum II'de Tekil Olmayan Salınımlı Kozmoloji: Tartışma

Vũ trụ dao động không đơn lẻ trên Randall-Sundrum II: Thảo luận

兰德尔-桑德拉姆 II 的非奇异振荡宇宙学：讨论

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro
The cosmological model
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References 2. The cosmological model The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) on the brane have the general form For the FRW line element describing an isotropic, homogenous universe, the modified EFE on the brane has the form However, in this letter we shall try to construct a novel non-singular cosmological model of oscillating nature on the spatially flat RS II brane with a spacelike extra dimension (ǫ = 1). For a spacelike extra dimension ǫ being positive, the Hubble parameter does not vanish naturally if the energy density ρ rises upto 2σ. So, RS II cosmology does not contain any inherent feature through which a non-singular bounce can be naturally realized. A Weyl curvature singularity due to infinitely large tidal forces at the wormhole throat can be resolved on the RS II brane with ordinary matter[17]. We shall try to induce the bounce using an ingredient that is quite familiar in early universe cosmology and finds application in achieving the inflationary mechanism- a scalar field. The scalar field is minimally coupled meaning that there is no coupling between the scalar field and gravity. In such a model there may exist an infinite number of cycles containing expansion and contraction phases. However, another additional mechanism is required besides a non-singular bounce to generate such an oscillating universe. The universe must begin to contract at late times following an expanding phase before the next cycle begins. This mechanism is known as the turnaround. We shall use two different mechanisms to generate the bounce and turnaround on the flat RS II brane. The time evolution of the scalar field has also been plotted in Figure 1. As evident from the figure (estimating the time of the bounce from Figure 2), negative values of the field play an important role in the bounce. So, from the evolution of the potential, it may be said that the bounce happens for the flatter branch of the potential that leads to an emergent cosmology in a closed relativistic Friedmann universe. We now move on to the late time where the universe is in an accelerating phase. Such a phase has been inferred from astronomical observations[19, 20]. With the discovery of the accelerating universe, there was a resurrection of the Λ-term in cosmology. However, there are certain inconsistencies with the Λ dark energy (DE) that has lead to a wide range of models including quintessence involving scalar fields[21, 22], Chaplygin gas involving fluids with nonlinear equation of states[23, 24] (EoS), the phantom with an exotic EoS[25, 26] and geometrical models which effectively modify the matter sector through geometrical contributions at the infrared (IR) scale[27, 28, 29] but not the real source matter. Here, we have already used a framework in which the geometrical contributions modify the matter sector effectively at the UV scale through the ρ 2 term. If such a term has to be significant in the universe at late times to source a turnaround through its possible non-conventional behaviour (H ∝ ρ), then there has to be a mechanism to make the energy density of the universe grow sufficiently large enough. There is a possibility to achieve this using one of the possible DE candidates that is observationally well favoured-the phantom. The phantom is an exotic fluid with a supernegative EoS (ω < −1) violating the Null Energy condition (NEC), proposed by Caldwell[25] to fit the observational data. The fact tha the phantom fits quite well with the observational data (−1.61 < ω < −0.78) has latter been verified by a number of groups[1, 2, 3]. Again making use of the UV corrected Friedmann equation on the brane, we obtain where α is a constant. We obtain analytical solutions for three different values of the EoS parameter, considering a phantom dominated universe. As we find from Figure 3 on plotiing the scale factor with time, the accelerating phantom dominated universe enters into a contracting phase before the scale factor diverges. Once the universe begins to contract, it is dominated by radiation or matter until the scalar field begins to dominate the universe that causes it to bounce before the scale factor reaches a zero value. So, the scale factor maintains a non zero finite value all along the evolution of the universe, never reaching a singular state. The energy density of the universe has also been plotted in Figure 3 as it evolves with time close to the turnaround. It is found to reach a peak just before the turnaround as it keeps on increasing in the phantom dominated eoch, before falling off again. The energy density is large enough at both early and late times to make the quadratic correction term in the modified EFE significant, but never diverges. It starts dropping following both the bounce and turnaround. This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro The cosmological model Discussion Acknowledgments References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro The cosmological model The cosmological model Discussion Discussion Acknowledgments Acknowledgments References References 2. The cosmological model The Einstein Field Equations (EFE) on the brane have the general form For the FRW line element describing an isotropic, homogenous universe, the modified EFE on the brane has the form However, in this letter we shall try to construct a novel non-singular cosmological model of oscillating nature on the spatially flat RS II brane with a spacelike extra dimension (ǫ = 1). For a spacelike extra dimension ǫ being positive, the Hubble parameter does not vanish naturally if the energy density ρ rises upto 2σ. So, RS II cosmology does not contain any inherent feature through which a non-singular bounce can be naturally realized. A Weyl curvature singularity due to infinitely large tidal forces at the wormhole throat can be resolved on the RS II brane with ordinary matter[17]. We shall try to induce the bounce using an ingredient that is quite familiar in early universe cosmology and finds application in achieving the inflationary mechanism- a scalar field. The scalar field is minimally coupled meaning that there is no coupling between the scalar field and gravity. In such a model there may exist an infinite number of cycles containing expansion and contraction phases. However, another additional mechanism is required besides a non-singular bounce to generate such an oscillating universe. The universe must begin to contract at late times following an expanding phase before the next cycle begins. This mechanism is known as the turnaround. We shall use two different mechanisms to generate the bounce and turnaround on the flat RS II brane. The time evolution of the scalar field has also been plotted in Figure 1. As evident from the figure (estimating the time of the bounce from Figure 2), negative values of the field play an important role in the bounce. So, from the evolution of the potential, it may be said that the bounce happens for the flatter branch of the potential that leads to an emergent cosmology in a closed relativistic Friedmann universe. We now move on to the late time where the universe is in an accelerating phase. Such a phase has been inferred from astronomical observations[19, 20]. With the discovery of the accelerating universe, there was a resurrection of the Λ-term in cosmology. However, there are certain inconsistencies with the Λ dark energy (DE) that has lead to a wide range of models including quintessence involving scalar fields[21, 22], Chaplygin gas involving fluids with nonlinear equation of states[23, 24] (EoS), the phantom with an exotic EoS[25, 26] and geometrical models which effectively modify the matter sector through geometrical contributions at the infrared (IR) scale[27, 28, 29] but not the real source matter. Here, we have already used a framework in which the geometrical contributions modify the matter sector effectively at the UV scale through the ρ 2 term. If such a term has to be significant in the universe at late times to source a turnaround through its possible non-conventional behaviour (H ∝ ρ), then there has to be a mechanism to make the energy density of the universe grow sufficiently large enough. There is a possibility to achieve this using one of the possible DE candidates that is observationally well favoured-the phantom. The phantom is an exotic fluid with a supernegative EoS (ω < −1) violating the Null Energy condition (NEC), proposed by Caldwell[25] to fit the observational data. The fact tha the phantom fits quite well with the observational data (−1.61 < ω < −0.78) has latter been verified by a number of groups[1, 2, 3]. Again making use of the UV corrected Friedmann equation on the brane, we obtain where α is a constant. We obtain analytical solutions for three different values of the EoS parameter, considering a phantom dominated universe. As we find from Figure 3 on plotiing the scale factor with time, the accelerating phantom dominated universe enters into a contracting phase before the scale factor diverges. Once the universe begins to contract, it is dominated by radiation or matter until the scalar field begins to dominate the universe that causes it to bounce before the scale factor reaches a zero value. So, the scale factor maintains a non zero finite value all along the evolution of the universe, never reaching a singular state. The energy density of the universe has also been plotted in Figure 3 as it evolves with time close to the turnaround. It is found to reach a peak just before the turnaround as it keeps on increasing in the phantom dominated eoch, before falling off again. The energy density is large enough at both early and late times to make the quadratic correction term in the modified EFE significant, but never diverges. It starts dropping following both the bounce and turnaround.

Non-singular Oscillating Cosmology on Randall-Sundrum II: The cosmological model

র‍্যান্ডাল-সান্ড্রাম II-তে অ-একবচন অসিলেটিং কসমোলজি: মহাজাগতিক মডেল

Nicht-singuläre oszillierende Kosmologie nach Randall-Sundrum II: Das kosmologische Modell

Cosmología oscilante no singular en Randall-Sundrum II: el modelo cosmológico

Cosmologie oscillante non singulière sur Randall-Sundrum II : le modèle cosmologique

रैंडल-सुंड्रम II पर गैर-विलक्षण दोलन ब्रह्मांड विज्ञान: ब्रह्मांड संबंधी मॉडल

ランドール・サンドラムの非特異振動宇宙論 II: 宇宙論モデル

Randall-Sundrum II의 비특이 진동 우주론: 우주론 모델

Cosmologia Oscilante Não Singular em Randall-Sundrum II: O modelo cosmológico

Несингулярная осциллирующая космология по Рэндаллу-Сундраму II: космологическая модель

Randall-Sundrum II'de Tekil Olmayan Salınımlı Kozmoloji: Kozmolojik model

Vũ trụ dao động không đơn lẻ trên Randall-Sundrum II: Mô hình vũ trụ

基于兰德尔-桑德拉姆的非奇异振荡宇宙学 II：宇宙学模型

This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license.
Authors:
(1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro
The cosmological model
Discussion
Acknowledgments
References References [1] Knop, R.A., et al. Astrophys.J. 598 102 (2003) [2] Spergel, D.N., et al, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 148 175 (2003) [3] Tegmark, M. et al, Phys. Rev. D 69 103501 (2004) [4] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 443 (1966). [5] S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A314 529 (1970). [6] A. Borde, A. H Guth and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 151301 (2003). [7] J. Polchinski, String Theory, Vol. 2, Superstring Theory and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1998). [8] R. Gambini and J. Pullin, A First Course in Loop Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, 2011) [9] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999). 10] Y. Shtanov and V. Sahni, Phys. Lett. B 557, 1 (2003) [11] A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006). [12] P. Singh, Class. Quantum Grav. 26 125005 (2009). [13] G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, MNRAS Lett. 496 (2020) L91. [14] S. Vagnozzi et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021) 100851. [15] S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J. 908 (2021) 84. [16] S. Dhawan, J. Alsing and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 (2021) L1. [17] R. Sengupta et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 39 105004. [18] G F. R. Ellis, J. Murugan and C. G. Tsagas, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 223. [19] S. J. Perlmutter et al., Nature 391 51 (1998). [20] Riess, A.G. et al., Astron. J. 116 1009 (1998). [21] Zlatev, I., Wang, L. and Steinhardt, P.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 896 (1999). [22] Ure˜na-L´opez, L.A. and Liddle, A., Phys. Rev. D 66 083005 (2002). [23] Kamenshchik, A., Moschella, U. and Pasquier, V., Phys. Lett. B 511 265 (2001) [24] U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, and S. Chakraborty, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 5609. [25] Caldwell, R.R., Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002) [26] Frampton, P. and Takahashi, T., Phys. Lett. B 557 135 (2003). [27] G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 485 208 (2000) [28] C. Deffayet, G. Dvali, and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 044023. [29] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 4 (2007) 115. [30] J. M. Cline, S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D70, 043543 (2004) [31] L. Parker and A. Raval, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 749 (2001). [32] R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 071301 (2003). [33] P. Davies, Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. 49 297 (1988). [34] R. Sengupta et al., Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 024037. [35] L. Visinelli, N. Bolis, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064039 (2018). [36] S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024020 (2019). [37] I. Banerjee, T. Paul and S. Sengupta, JCAP 02, 041 (2021). This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) This paper is available on arxiv under CC 4.0 license. Authors: Authors: (1) Rikpratik Sengupta, Department of Physics, Aliah University, Kolkata 700 160, West Bengal, India (E-mail addresses: rikpratik.sengupta@gmail.com(RS)) Table of Links Abstract and Intro The cosmological model Discussion Acknowledgments References Abstract and Intro Abstract and Intro The cosmological model The cosmological model Discussion Discussion Acknowledgments Acknowledgments References References References [1] Knop, R.A., et al. Astrophys.J. 598 102 (2003) [2] Spergel, D.N., et al, Astrophys.J.Suppl. 148 175 (2003) [3] Tegmark, M. et al, Phys. Rev. D 69 103501 (2004) [4] S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett. 17 443 (1966). [5] S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. London A314 529 (1970). [6] A. Borde, A. H Guth and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90 151301 (2003). [7] J. Polchinski, String Theory, Vol. 2, Superstring Theory and Beyond (Cambridge University Press, 1998). [8] R. Gambini and J. Pullin, A First Course in Loop Quantum Gravity (Oxford University Press, 2011) [9] L. Randall and R. Sundrum, Phys. Rev. Lett. 83, 4690 (1999). 10] Y. Shtanov and V. Sahni, Phys. Lett. B 557, 1 (2003) [11] A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 74, 084003 (2006). [12] P. Singh, Class. Quantum Grav. 26 125005 (2009). [13] G. Efstathiou and S. Gratton, MNRAS Lett. 496 (2020) L91. [14] S. Vagnozzi et al., Phys. Dark Univ. 33 (2021) 100851. [15] S. Vagnozzi, A. Loeb and M. Moresco, Astrophys. J. 908 (2021) 84. [16] S. Dhawan, J. Alsing and S. Vagnozzi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 506 (2021) L1. [17] R. Sengupta et al., Class. Quant. Grav. 39 105004. [18] G F. R. Ellis, J. Murugan and C. G. Tsagas, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 223. [19] S. J. Perlmutter et al., Nature 391 51 (1998). [20] Riess, A.G. et al., Astron. J. 116 1009 (1998). [21] Zlatev, I., Wang, L. and Steinhardt, P.J., Phys. Rev. Lett. 82 896 (1999). [22] Ure˜na-L´opez, L.A. and Liddle, A., Phys. Rev. D 66 083005 (2002). [23] Kamenshchik, A., Moschella, U. and Pasquier, V., Phys. Lett. B 511 265 (2001) [24] U. Debnath, A. Banerjee, and S. Chakraborty, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 5609. [25] Caldwell, R.R., Phys. Lett. B 545, 23 (2002) [26] Frampton, P. and Takahashi, T., Phys. Lett. B 557 135 (2003). [27] G. Dvali, G. Gabadadze and M. Porrati, Phys. Lett. B 485 208 (2000) [28] C. Deffayet, G. Dvali, and G. Gabadadze, Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002) 044023. [29] S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Int. J. Geom. Methods Mod. Phys., 4 (2007) 115. [30] J. M. Cline, S. Jeon and G. D. Moore, Phys. Rev. D70, 043543 (2004) [31] L. Parker and A. Raval, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 749 (2001). [32] R. Caldwell, M. Kamionkowski and N. Weinberg, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 071301 (2003). [33] P. Davies, Annales Poincare Phys. Theor. 49 297 (1988). [34] R. Sengupta et al., Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) 024037. [35] L. Visinelli, N. Bolis, and S. Vagnozzi, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064039 (2018). [36] S. Vagnozzi and L. Visinelli, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024020 (2019). [37] I. Banerjee, T. Paul and S. Sengupta, JCAP 02, 041 (2021).

Non-singular Oscillating Cosmology on Randall-Sundrum II: References

নন-সিঙ্গুলার অসিলেটিং কসমোলজি অন র‍্যান্ডাল-সান্ড্রাম II: রেফারেন্স

Nicht-singuläre oszillierende Kosmologie auf Randall-Sundrum II: Referenzen

Cosmología oscilante no singular en Randall-Sundrum II: Referencias

Cosmologie oscillante non singulière sur Randall-Sundrum II : références

रैंडल-सुंड्रम II पर गैर-विलक्षण दोलन ब्रह्मांड विज्ञान: संदर्भ

ランドール・サンドラム II における非特異振動宇宙論: 参考文献

Randall-Sundrum II의 비특이 진동 우주론: 참고 자료

Cosmologia Oscilante Não Singular em Randall-Sundrum II: Referências

Несингулярная осциллирующая космология по Рэндаллу-Сундраму II: Ссылки

Randall-Sundrum II'de Tekil Olmayan Salınımlı Kozmoloji: Referanslar

Vũ trụ dao động không đơn lẻ trên Randall-Sundrum II: Tài liệu tham khảo

基于 Randall-Sundrum II 的非奇异振荡宇宙学：参考文献

has been nominated for a 2020 #Noonie in Pierre-Antoine Mill from France Software Development category. So, we asked our Noonie Nominees to tell us. Here’s what had to share. The Noonies are Hacker Noon’s way of getting to know — from a community perspective —  what matters in tech today. Pierre 1.  Which 2020 Noonie have you been nominated for? TypeScript 2. Tell us a bit about yourself. I <3 TypeScript, React, and Functional Programming. I type it all. OSS contributor. Sport & life addict. I'm interested in sustainable development and environment/climate. 3. Tell us about the things you make / write / manage / build. I write blog posts, courses, and libs for the TypeScript ecosystem. 4. What are you most excited about right now? The future. 5. What are you worried about right now? The state of our society and the environment. 6.   What's the most useful advice you've ever given somebody? Change your inner intent and your life will turn around. 7. How has the pandemic changed your life and/or career? In some way. It has accelerated the choices I have to make. It made stuff clearer. 8. If we gave you $10 million to invest in one thing right now, where would you put it? In sustainable, automated, organic, technological agriculture. 9. What's an opinion you have that most people don't agree with? The human being is essentially wrong. 10. Which apps can't you live without? I create apps but I don't use them much. I'm free from my phone. 11. What are you currently learning? React Native For much the same reasons Hacker Noon decided not to put good ideas behind pop-ups or paywalls — nor abuse your personal data to target you with creepy ads — we also decided that you don’t have to be a #thinkfluencer or have 50k followers on Twitter to earn the recognition that comes with a 2020 Noonie Nomination. Make somebody’s day and nominate them to be recognized in the internet’s most independent and community-driven awards: . NOONIES.TECH

"Change Your Inner Intent And Your Life Will Turn Around", Interview with Pierre-Antoine Mill

I’m seeing the first full quarter of appreciation for many alt-coins. Appreciation is low but a turn around from what largely has been consistent declines for the life of alt-coins. This assumes this trend holds through the end of this month. Bitcoin will also appreciate this quarter if the same holds true. A few select Tokens: ETH moves directly with the volume of ICOs. . The new IEO (initial exchange offering) movement being touted as the second coming of ICOs may prove to do the same for ETH There is a high level of unsatisfied demand for IEOs. The gambling culture of crypto will fuel this. The wave will be nowhere near that of ICO’s. Because exchanges are pre-vetting the IEO projects on top of the hard lessons learned from poor quality companies behind all too many ICOs we’ll have increased quality in the IEO as an investment opportunity. Q2 is going to be exciting in crypto. This is my first-hand experience and information. I’m buying more bitcoin. I’m still wary of putting my own money on non-reputable crypto exchanges. Too many posts of people having trouble getting their money off of the exchanges likely due more to technical bugs more than intentional activities. Rapidly constructed, the technologies behind these exchanges is young and brittle while improving fast. Exchange support teams are having trouble keeping up with support requests. If you are a blockchain company this may be an optimal time to list your token on an exchange. My company Efficient Frontier an algo trading company in crypto provides market making services and strategic planning can help. If you are a listed ICO you should also contact us. chris@efrontier.io This is not investment advice. Do your own research. Thanks for reading! ;-) If you like this article you may be interested in this one as well Here is the blog maintained by the company I work for an algo trading market-making firm in blockchain/crypto Efficient Frontier If you would like an email alert for my next post sign up here.

Crypto markets show signs of a turnaround

Business Growth Won’t Last Forever Business growth should never be taken for granted. Even when things look promising, your business could still be at risk for falling into a slump, or worse, taking a dive. It’s impossible to deny that the market is volatile and unpredictable. Competition is abundant, and all businesses lose market share at some point. When revenue hits a speed bump, it’s common for leaders to anxiously ride it out. But when business growth really slows down, denial isn’t going to get you out of the rut. Leadership may react with a mad scramble to redirect the sinking ship: new products, new markets, or new acquisitions can transpire overnight. But if these changes occur in a C-suite silo there’s a high probability your employees and core customers will feel left in the dark. And employees with varying ideas about the future and customers who no longer feel connected to your business can easily derail a growth strategy. Misalignment only leaves more opportunity for your competitors to encroach on even more of your space. And when that happens, employee morale can sink deeper, recruiting becomes challenging, and share prices may plummet as investors abandon ship. At this point your options are clear: execute a thoughtful, agile turnaround strategy or . risk becoming obsolete Bringing Your Brand Along For the Ride Some of the most common approaches to a turnaround strategy include increasing growth through new market penetration, tapping into new markets, pursuing alternate sales channels, developing new products, or expanding your customer base. Regardless of which avenue you follow, transforming your business without preparing your brand to adapt alongside it can jeopardize your plans for growth. Consider the recent news of . With Tesla shares dropping 16% over the last year, Tesla turned to the acquisition as a business growth strategy. They could no longer afford to burn through the $2.2 billion dollars of the last 4 quarters. The acquisition was an obvious attempt to turnaround Tesla’s business. The problem was that Tesla took the leap into solar energy without fully considering the consequences of the brand, and more specifically the people the brand matters to. And even further since the deal announcement. What’s the cause? Apparently, investors aren’t on board with the idea of buying solar panels. Tesla misunderstood its target audience and will now have to backtrack to renew brand loyalty. Although this example shows long-term vision, business growth without a parallel brand strategy may have insurmountable long-term consequences for Tesla and SolarCity. Tesla Motor’s offer to acquire SolarCity shares have plummeted Map Brand to Business Aligning your brand to your business as it undergoes a transformation is the best way to create a road map that is tailored for business growth. The vision for the business needs to guide all business decisions. By bringing your brand and business together, you’ll ensure that your business stays true to who you are, what you do, and why you matter. As you position your business to grow, respecting the underlying vision of the company will ensure that the growth is in line with what the brand stands for. Brand strategy will address your key target audiences, your value proposition, your positioning, your narrative, and your go to market strategy. With these elements adjusted to reflect the business transformation, your brand will be prepared to roll out a strategic marketing plan. To really change the tide of business growth, the strategy needs to incorporate long-term goals with a short-term action plan. It needs to be measurable, too. Identify the key indicators of business growth and hold the business accountable as it transforms. A turnaround that shows improvement to employee engagement, brand perception, NPS, and customer loyalty will ultimately affect sales. And increasing top line revenue increases market share and for some, stock price. But that’s just the plan. Executing the brand strategy as the business shifts requires agility in the changing market. Too often, companies take a year to develop a strategy and by the time they’re ready to implement it, the market has shifted. Testing and iterating in real time will allow your business and brand to adapt quickly so that it remains relevant. It’s critical to develop a flexible strategy with participation from your sales and marketing team. Sales and marketing will provide necessary, immediate feedback from the people on the front line of your business. Their buy-in and shared responsibility creates alignment from the top-down. As the business turnaround happens, the sales and marketing team drive the messaging to make sure your target audience is on board too. Achieving Sustainable Growth are never achieved without a brand that is strong enough to weather the tides of change. Whether you’re looking to grow through market penetration, market development, alternative channels, product development, or expanding your customer base, your brand needs to lead the way. And change doesn’t happen in a vacuum. An agile, measurable approach that stays true to the long-term vision is key to turning around your company’s trajectory. Grow your brand and grow your business. Growth strategies Emotive Brand is a San Francisco brand strategy agency.

Turnaround Strategy: Include Your Brand

Now that we've covered the US presidential elections and most of the Q3 earnings, I want to take a moment to discuss Intel and some of the excellent reporting from Reuters about the company's downfall. Intel, as it is today, appears very insignificant when compared to AMD and Nvidia, both of whom have made some very shrewd bets on artificial intelligence, especially Nvidia. Though in Nvidia's case, I've argued that its technology was simply at the right place at the right time. As I said so in March: Nvidia never really started as an artificial intelligence company the way OpenAI and so many others like it did. It started out as a company that produced graphic cards for video games, and for a long, long time, this is what Nvidia was known for. But as an offshoot of all the research it did in producing better and better graphic cards, it ended up creating tensor cores for real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies for use in video games. Little did Nvidia know that this technology would then serve as the backbone of LLMs, instantly transforming it as the arms dealer of choice in corporations' pursuit of the perfect AI. At the time Nvidia was developing its technology, however, Intel engineers were scoffing at video gaming chip architecture and believed that a CPU could more effectively handle processing tasks needed to build and run AI models. As time has bore witness, Intel and its engineers were wrong. Very, very wrong. So when demand for AI chips skyrocketed, Intel was left with its pants down, scrambling to get a product out. Ironically, Intel was this close to hitting the jackpot that Nvidia eventually ended up striking. In 2017 and 2018, the company had the opportunity to invest in OpenAI but decided against it because then-CEO Bob Swan did not believe generative AI would make it to the market soon enough for it to be worthwhile the $1 billion Intel would have had to pay for a 15% stake. OpenAI also offered a further 15% stake if Intel agreed to make hardware for it at cost price — but the company refused, leaving OpenAI to rely on Nvidia's chips instead. GET PUBLISHED ON HACKERNOON.
Join a global network of 45,000+ published devs, builders,   founders, makers, VCs, hodlrs, and hackers. Start submitting your tech   stories and tutorials to get published FREE on HackerNoon — no pop-ups,   no paywalls. But that was then. Intel hasn't fared any better under current CEO Pat Gelsinger's leadership either. Intel rehired Gelsinger in 2021 to help lead the company out of a tough spot: it was losing out to the likes of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Samsung Electronics on chip-making technology, and the idea was to have Gelsinger, who had been with Intel for most of his career and helped develop some of its most successful personal-computer chips, lead a turn around. While Gelsinger's heart was in the right place, his turnaround plan didn't really do much to turn the company's fortunes around. In fact, things came to a head this past summer when Intel stunned both employees and investors with its poor quarterly results and announced sweeping measures (cost cuts, headcount reduction, etc.) to become profitable again. All of this could have been avoided had it not been for some key mistakes Gelsinger made after taking reins of the company. According to Reuters, soon after becoming CEO, Gelsinger offended Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing by calling Taiwan unstable. Gelsinger's "Taiwan is not a stable place" comment had more to do with his push to develop a US-based supply chain for chip manufacturing, but was so poorly received by TSMC that it reneged on a 40% discount it was willing to offer Intel on chips it designed but could not produce. That discount would have really helped Intel's margins, but, nope, Gelsinger was too busy commenting on Taiwan. Making matters worse, Gelsinger kept doubling down on his plan to develop a manufacturing footprint that could rival TSMC's, but on American and European soil instead. Problem is, customers have no reason to shy away from TSMC, particularly considering that Intel's foundry ambitions have run into technical challenges. Combined with the fact that Intel kept sticking to producing chips for desktop computers and servers, and you have a clearer picture of why the company is in such dire straits today. The list of fumbles goes on, but what must really make this sting for Gelsinger is that just a few weeks ago it was announced that Nvidia would take the company's place on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. Today, Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world. The company has a pile of cash. And CEO Jensen Huang's 3.8% stake in Nvidia is worth more than Intel's market value combined, Reuters reports. And to think Intel could have prevented all of this from happening. The way I see it, Intel is either going to be bought or Gelsinger will be fired, possibly both. I'll be here to report on it when it happens. Intel was #198 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. In Other News.. 📰 Bitcoin ETF Options Attract $2B on Day One, Shifting BTC’s Market Structure — via CoinDesk
H, the AI startup that raised $220M, launches its first product: Runner H for ‘agentic’ applications — via TechCrunch
With Musk in tow, Trump eyes changes to government policies on AI and its dangers — via CNN
Apple to urge judge to end US smartphone monopoly case — via Reuters
Trump 2.0 will face Big Tech antitrust test — via Axios
FTX co-founder Gary Wang avoids prison time for role in crypto fraud — via CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan, Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Now that we've covered the US presidential elections and most of the Q3 earnings , I want to take a moment to discuss Intel and some of the excellent reporting from Reuters about the company's downfall. US presidential elections US presidential elections Q3 earnings Q3 earnings Intel Intel Intel, as it is today, appears very insignificant when compared to AMD and Nvidia , both of whom have made some very shrewd bets on artificial intelligence, especially Nvidia. Though in Nvidia's case, I've argued that its technology was simply at the right place at the right time. AMD AMD Nvidia Nvidia As I said so in March: said said Nvidia never really started as an artificial intelligence company the way OpenAI and so many others like it did. It started out as a company that produced graphic cards for video games, and for a long, long time, this is what Nvidia was known for. But as an offshoot of all the research it did in producing better and better graphic cards, it ended up creating tensor cores for real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies for use in video games. Little did Nvidia know that this technology would then serve as the backbone of LLMs, instantly transforming it as the arms dealer of choice in corporations' pursuit of the perfect AI. Nvidia never really started as an artificial intelligence company the way OpenAI and so many others like it did. It started out as a company that produced graphic cards for video games, and for a long, long time, this is what Nvidia was known for. But as an offshoot of all the research it did in producing better and better graphic cards, it ended up creating tensor cores for real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies for use in video games. Little did Nvidia know that this technology would then serve as the backbone of LLMs, instantly transforming it as the arms dealer of choice in corporations' pursuit of the perfect AI. Nvidia never really started as an artificial intelligence company the way OpenAI and so many others like it did. It started out as a company that produced graphic cards for video games, and for a long, long time, this is what Nvidia was known for. But as an offshoot of all the research it did in producing better and better graphic cards, it ended up creating tensor cores for real-time deep learning image enhancement and upscaling technologies for use in video games. Little did Nvidia know that this technology would then serve as the backbone of LLMs, instantly transforming it as the arms dealer of choice in corporations' pursuit of the perfect AI. At the time Nvidia was developing its technology, however, Intel engineers were scoffing at video gaming chip architecture and believed that a CPU could more effectively handle processing tasks needed to build and run AI models. scoffing scoffing As time has bore witness, Intel and its engineers were wrong. Very, very wrong. So when demand for AI chips skyrocketed, Intel was left with its pants down, scrambling to get a product out. Ironically, Intel was this close to hitting the jackpot that Nvidia eventually ended up striking. In 2017 and 2018, the company had the opportunity to invest in OpenAI but decided against it because then-CEO Bob Swan did not believe generative AI would make it to the market soon enough for it to be worthwhile the $1 billion Intel would have had to pay for a 15% stake. this OpenAI OpenAI OpenAI also offered a further 15% stake if Intel agreed to make hardware for it at cost price — but the company refused, leaving OpenAI to rely on Nvidia's chips instead. GET PUBLISHED ON HACKERNOON. Join a global network of 45,000+ published devs, builders,   founders, makers, VCs, hodlrs, and hackers. Start submitting your tech   stories and tutorials to get published FREE on HackerNoon — no pop-ups,   no paywalls. GET PUBLISHED ON HACKERNOON. GET PUBLISHED ON HACKERNOON . GET PUBLISHED ON HACKERNOON Join a global network of 45,000+ published devs, builders,   founders, makers, VCs, hodlrs, and hackers. Start submitting your tech   stories and tutorials to get published FREE on HackerNoon — no pop-ups,   no paywalls. Join a global network of 45,000+ published devs, builders,   founders, makers, VCs, hodlrs, and hackers. Start submitting your tech   stories and tutorials to get published FREE on HackerNoon — no pop-ups,   no paywalls. But that was then. Intel hasn't fared any better under current CEO Pat Gelsinger's leadership either. Intel rehired Gelsinger in 2021 to help lead the company out of a tough spot: it was losing out to the likes of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing and Samsung Electronics on chip-making technology, and the idea was to have Gelsinger, who had been with Intel for most of his career and helped develop some of its most successful personal-computer chips, lead a turn around. rehired rehired While Gelsinger's heart was in the right place, his turnaround plan didn't really do much to turn the company's fortunes around. In fact, things came to a head this past summer when Intel stunned both employees and investors with its poor quarterly results and announced sweeping measures (cost cuts, headcount reduction, etc.) to become profitable again. stunned stunned All of this could have been avoided had it not been for some key mistakes Gelsinger made after taking reins of the company. According to Reuters, soon after becoming CEO, Gelsinger offended Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing by calling Taiwan unstable. According According Gelsinger's "Taiwan is not a stable place" comment had more to do with his push to develop a US-based supply chain for chip manufacturing, but was so poorly received by TSMC that it reneged on a 40% discount it was willing to offer Intel on chips it designed but could not produce. That discount would have really helped Intel's margins, but, nope, Gelsinger was too busy commenting on Taiwan. Making matters worse, Gelsinger kept doubling down on his plan to develop a manufacturing footprint that could rival TSMC's, but on American and European soil instead. Problem is, customers have no reason to shy away from TSMC, particularly considering that Intel's foundry ambitions have run into technical challenges. Combined with the fact that Intel kept sticking to producing chips for desktop computers and servers, and you have a clearer picture of why the company is in such dire straits today. The list of fumbles goes on, but what must really make this sting for Gelsinger is that just a few weeks ago it was announced that Nvidia would take the company's place on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. announced announced Today, Nvidia is the most valuable company in the world. The company has a pile of cash. And CEO Jensen Huang's 3.8% stake in Nvidia is worth more than Intel's market value combined, Reuters reports . reports reports And to think Intel could have prevented all of this from happening. The way I see it, Intel is either going to be bought or Gelsinger will be fired, possibly both. I'll be here to report on it when it happens. Intel was #198 on HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings this week. In Other News.. 📰 In Other News.. 📰 Bitcoin ETF Options Attract $2B on Day One, Shifting BTC’s Market Structure — via CoinDesk H, the AI startup that raised $220M, launches its first product: Runner H for ‘agentic’ applications — via TechCrunch With Musk in tow, Trump eyes changes to government policies on AI and its dangers — via CNN Apple to urge judge to end US smartphone monopoly case — via Reuters Trump 2.0 will face Big Tech antitrust test — via Axios FTX co-founder Gary Wang avoids prison time for role in crypto fraud — via CNBC Bitcoin ETF Options Attract $2B on Day One, Shifting BTC’s Market Structure — via CoinDesk CoinDesk CoinDesk H, the AI startup that raised $220M, launches its first product: Runner H for ‘agentic’ applications — via TechCrunch TechCrunch TechCrunch With Musk in tow, Trump eyes changes to government policies on AI and its dangers — via CNN CNN CNN Apple to urge judge to end US smartphone monopoly case — via Reuters Reuters Reuters Trump 2.0 will face Big Tech antitrust test — via Axios Axios Axios FTX co-founder Gary Wang avoids prison time for role in crypto fraud — via CNBC CNBC CNBC And that's a wrap! Don't forget to share this newsletter with your family and friends! See y'all next week. PEACE! ☮️ — Sheharyar Khan , Editor, Business Tech @ HackerNoon Sheharyar Khan Sheharyar Khan *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. *All rankings are current as of Monday. To see how the rankings have changed, please visit HackerNoon's Tech Company Rankings page. Tech Company Rankings Tech Company Rankings Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here. Tech, What the Heck!? is a once-weekly newsletter written by HackerNoon editors that combine HackerNoon's proprietary data with news-worthy tech stories from around the internet. Humorous and insightful, the newsletter recaps trending events that are shaping the world of tech. Subscribe here . here here

Intel (No Longer) Inside, or How One CEO Messed Everything Up

ইন্টেল (আর নেই) ভিতরে, বা কীভাবে একজন সিইও সবকিছুকে গোলমাল করেছে

Intel (nicht mehr) Inside oder wie ein CEO alles vermasselt hat

Intel (ya no está) dentro, o cómo un CEO lo arruinó todo

Intel (n'est plus) à l'intérieur, ou comment un PDG a tout gâché

इंटेल (अब नहीं) अंदर, या कैसे एक सीईओ ने सब कुछ गड़बड़ कर दिया

インテル（もはや）内部、あるいはある CEO がいかにしてすべてを台無しにしたか

Intel(더 이상) 내부 또는 한 CEO가 모든 것을 어떻게 망쳤는지

Intel (não mais) dentro, ou como um CEO bagunçou tudo

Intel (больше не) Inside, или как один генеральный директор все испортил

Intel (Artık) İçeride Değil veya Bir CEO Her Şeyi Nasıl Mahvetti

Intel (Không Còn) Bên Trong, hay Một CEO Đã Làm Hỏng Mọi Thứ Như Thế Nào

英特尔（不再）内部，或者一位首席执行官如何把一切都搞砸了

The Building Blocks of UI/UX: How Atomic Design Transforms Your Workflow

Here's Why Talent Isn't Rare. This Is.

Stories, News & Mentions about TURNAROUND

Turnaround’s Stories on HackerNoon