Consider vacuum decay

 The vacuum tends to cool because entropy is always maximizing. That means more complex structure, less redundancy. But the vacuum need collisions to reset its expectation, it decays. It mainly decays by dropping its 4D capability and expects a 3D single center, one moment of curvature. The interplay is bouncing between 3 and 4 relative primes. We are a slightly over condensed universe, dunno why, but we bounce up to the fourth then decay back down.  

So we have a clock after all. Do the spin experiment multiple times over the next million years, look for vacuum decay the fouls the experimental results. This must be a natural equilibrium for an extremely large set of almost nothings. Becoming sparse and losing curvature makes density unsustainable, and there is a re-establishment of the cosmological constants.  So as the vacuum decays, mass seems to accelerate along a common axis. 

Our universe, but unstable. The small radius much closer to the large.

When you fall into a black hole you are just spiraling the route around the interior of the torus. If the vacuum decays then you tend to spiral out, and local matter is in much closer proximity to each other. Using my definition of decays. On that inner surface should be a ring of quasars, maintaining balance.  

The vacuum is another self sampled system. Whatever its solution, it must be maintained by collisions if it is closed.  There is only one way to maintain this with almost constant N, and that is unstable dimensional jump. 

If the vacuum is decaying then how is entropy maximizing?  that rings of quasars around the center should be the fourth binomial. But there is quite a bit of error, that inner radius is not well defined.  There are not black holes, just a black circles inside the torus.

I think the universe is cyclic sand much much bigger than we think. But still closed, and that is the fun part. This idea must be kind of provable if we can set and test boundary conditions on those two radii.

Take any closed model that is finite dimensional. Rule out the null model. I think you might be stuck, and most optimum math requires three and sometimes four relative primes. I speculate that is the Law of relative primes. The fundamental constant of Ito's calculus? Proof that Avogadro is a dimensional constant?