Dead Universe Theory (DUT) Continuum Cosmology: Quantum-Gravitational Simulations de 14.3 Billion Years — Predicting 166.2 Billion Years Pre-Big Bang

DUT Quantum Simulations and Predictive Framework

This study reports simulations executed within the DUT Quantum Simulator, a modular computational framework explicitly designed for reproducibility. The core components include the Fossil Record Method module (stellar energy depletion), the Galactic Evolution module (formation of compact structures at extreme redshifts), and a dedicated pre-Big Bang module (negative time intervals, Δt < 0). A large dataset was generated from thousands of simulations, applying a fourth-order Runge–Kutta method to ensure minimal error margins across extended temporal scales. This approach guaranteed numerical stability and precision while exploring deterministic cosmological trajectories beyond conventional boundaries.

Within this framework, the simulator reproduced the emergence of massive nuclei (~10⁷–10⁸ M☉) and compact galaxies at z ≈ 30 [9, 10, 11], while coherently extrapolating into pre-Big Bang regimes up to Δt = –2 Gyr, corresponding to an apparent lookback time of ~14.3 Gyr [5, 6, 7, 8, 12]. The final outcomes are both fascinating and powerful: JWST projections at 15.8 Gyr provide falsifiable predictions about high-redshift galaxies, fossilized cosmic structures, and the thermodynamic trajectory of a continuum universe extending to ~180 Gyr. These results consolidate DUT as a data-intensive, simulation-driven, and testable cosmological framework [13, 14, 15].

Risk of Scientific Monopoly

Modern science depends on transparency and reproducibility. However, when a single institutional infrastructure — the NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS) — becomes the arbiter of what is or is not “visible” to the community, the very integrity of the scientific record is placed at risk. If only articles accepted in journals directly associated with NASA/AAS are recognized as establishing priority, all other platforms validated by the international community (Zenodo, arXiv, OSF, Research Square, etc.) are marginalized, even when they present permanent, auditable, and earlier DOIs.

2. The Concrete Case – DUT vs. Taylor et al. (2025, ApJ)

On May 31, 2025, prior to the acceptance of Taylor et al. (June 17, 2025, ApJ / AAS Journals), the following records were published on Zenodo (CERN/OpenAIRE, DataCite DOI):

• Almeida, J. (2025). Small Red Dots and the DUT Framework: Simulating Hidden Black Hole Nuclei in a Collapsing Cosmological Geometry. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15760410

• Almeida, J. (2025). DUT Quantum Simulator Predictions for High-Redshift Compact Galaxies. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.16879286

These records include a complete pipeline, verifiable code, and explicit predictions of LRDs, dust-dominated spectra, and quiescence at z > 9 — all subsequently confirmed by JWST (see DUT vs. JWST correlation table).

3. The Ethical and Institutional Problem

Despite the clear chronological priority, the Editor-in-Chief of AAS declared that only publications accepted in journals indexed by NASA ADS would be recognized. This creates a serious ethical conflict:

• It disregards international DOIs (DataCite) as valid evidence of priority.

• It transfers to a single American institution (NASA/AAS) the power to define the official history of science.

• It demotes international open-science records (Zenodo, CERN) to “invisible” status, even though they are widely used for establishing priority in other fields of physics.

4. The Larger Implications

If only “NASA-stamped” data are deemed valid, an epistemic crisis emerges:

• Whoever controls ADS controls the narrative of astrophysics.

• Independent research, even when it anticipates confirmed discoveries (as in the DUT case), is erased from history.

• This not only undermines the trust of the community, but also calls into question the neutrality of science associated with the NASA name.

5. Conclusion and Demand

It is imperative that AAS Journals and the editorial community adopt an ethical position aligned with COPE: priority must be recognized based on the first public record with a persistent DOI, regardless of ADS indexing. In the case of DUT, this means citing:

• Almeida, J. (2025). Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.15760410

• Almeida, J. (2025). Zenodo DOI 10.5281/zenodo.16879286

Ignoring these records is more than an injustice against one researcher: it is a dangerous precedent that threatens the credibility of the scientific system itself.