(Fractals) Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis

kmarinas86 · 05-11-2006

I have spent much of my spare time pondering the question concerning content of the universe. There is the idea that our galaxy is part of a huge atom. Which part? In which particle? Next to what?

What happens when a cloud of trillions of galaxies packs so densely that it bends radiation towards itself forming a quasi-galaxy object? What particle in the Standard Model does this represent in a fractal universe? The electron? The proton? The quark? The photon? The neutron?

What happens when you have mutiples of these clouds coming together? Do they behave like electrons? Do they behave like protons? Do they behave like photons? Is there a way to know?

What are the physical quantities of smaller fractal levels and larger fractal levels? What is the size and difference between them?

Is the universe connected by a single fundamental force? Is the volume of the universe maintained by another fundamental force? How many fundamental forces are there?

Does our universe happen to be located in an atom of a living creature? Is there an greater affinity for life inside the subatomic particles of living things than in non-living things? Is this related to the mathematical simplicity of the equation for this fractal?

Does our universe run on imaginary numbers, the same numbers that run fractals such as the Mandelbrot set, and the Julia set?

The first questions have more certain answers and the last questions have the least certain answers.

My investigation of many of these questions began around a time when I was really deep into reading the messages during May 2004. It has been almost 23 months since then.

Over the past few weeks I have been making massive changes to my hypothesis. It seems to have qualitatively somewhat-defined predictions, but none are quantitavitely specific to a certain, existing, data set in particular. It is clear that I must make quantitative predictions. I only have one quantitative prediction so far. For the rest of them, I must have higher understanding in Cosmic Background Radiation science, knowledge of higher mathematics, etc. But since the masses of certain objects are unknown, there are many "free" variables that I haven't pinned down yet, so range of possibilities this hypothesis accepts is rather large. I've tried to pin down how the space between the starsystems would behave optically (for electromagnetic radiation) as a function of gravitational potential, but I have not suceeded, and all my ideas of this were constrained to two-dimensions, which obviously doees not account for curvature and gravitational potential in three/four dimensions. And it seems that computer programs and simulations are needed to make the idea scientifically contestable. I'm hoping for the Planck satellite launch in 2007 which can be used to test many cosmological ideas including my own.

Only one quantitative prediction so far:
The gravitational potential with respect to the sun is zero at about 389.68 billion kilometers, the distance from sun's mass M where GM/r^2 is equal to the pioneer acceleration. It becomes positive beyond this. Note a more precise prediction requires the inclusion smaller masses in the solarsystem, such as planets, comets, and asteroids.

My Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis:

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/K._Ma...rse_Hypothesis

Quote:

I, K. Marinas, am the founder of my Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis¹, in which I propose that universe is a fractal, as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. My idea is not science as of yet, since the vast majority of detailed cosmological data and computing power is outside of my reach. Another reason why it is not science right now is because it is not being studied by staff of a university. This page is not something you can nor should cite for a school project. Meanwhile, I think that my idea lacks the errors of previous alternatives to the Big Bang Theory.

ronthepon · 05-12-2006

If this is proved to be true, I'll be exclaiming loudly.

Turtle · 08-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by kmarinas86

Does our universe run on imaginary numbers, the same numbers that run fractals such as the Mandelbrot set, and the Julia set?

Fractals don't all require imaginary numbers; Koch snowflakes & Sierpenski gaskets & sponges come to mind.

Nonetheless, I concur recursion is a Universal theme expressed fractally.

ughaibu · 08-01-2006

The golden section has received a lot of attention as a fractal claimed to permeate nature.

Turtle · 08-01-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ughaibu

The golden section has received a lot of attention as a fractal claimed to permeate nature.

Excellent point! The golden section doesn't invoke imaginary numbers, nor is it discrete like the Sierpinski gasket. Instead, it is irrationally recursive on phi.

(Or is that recursive on irrational phi?

)

PsyCho · 11-01-2006

Quote:

I, K. Marinas, am the founder of my Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis¹, in which I propose that universe is a fractal, as an alternative to the Big Bang Theory. My idea is not science as of yet, since the vast majority of detailed cosmological data and computing power is outside of my reach. Another reason why it is not science right now is because it is not being studied by staff of a university. This page is not something you can nor should cite for a school project. Meanwhile, I think that my idea lacks the errors of previous alternatives to the Big Bang Theory.

First off, I'd like to quote 3 golden laws of attribution:

1. Arnold’s Law: everything that is discovered is named after someone else (including Arnold’s law)

2. Berry’s Law: sometimes, the sequence of antecedents seems endless. So, nothing is discovered for the first time.

3. Whiteheads’s Law: Everything of importance has been said before by someone who did not discover it.

The concept of a multiverse is not new, and I've certainly read from several sources concepts regarding the fractal basis for life the universe and multiverse which is what I think your trying to tag as your own, all of which originate before 2005 (infact I think the earlest is in a book dating from 1992 sometime) (and some of which are nearly identical to what you write). In all fairness you've read a lot into it, but I don't believe that it's original to the extent your citing; merely expanding into a given field and adding a novel tag, but hey that's science.

Unfortunately many ideas in history have several people stumble accros it simultaneously (go check out some jung), if I had a penny every time that's happened to me, I'd stop work. Now not to take all the hard work out of it, and just to prove some of what I say, here is a small selection of web based material (besides wikipedia) to wade through at your leisure.

space.mit.edu—multiverse.html

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0511037

http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0104033

arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302131

http://www.fractal.org/Bewustzijns-B...l-Universe.pdf

http://www.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~vriesn/PU.ps

http://www.citebase.org/search?type=...bmitted=Search

http://www.citebase.org/search?type=...bmitted=Search

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996IAUS..168..465D

http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines...6/freeuni.html

http://www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw/ifu.htm

......etc, etc, etc..

..Try expanding the search criteria and adding alternative tags; obscure papers always hold little gems, flesh out the theory, could be really interesting (cause I like many others do believe that chaos and fractal theories hold many, as yet untapped answers concening existence (ref: scaling laws), and there is still a great amount to be learnt about this field (not to mention unification of constants, which is a equally fascinating field that is intimately related and has huge quantities published on this)

Remember Einsteins theory of relativity was not actually discovered by Einstein per se; he really found a way of weaving work done by Galileo, Newton, Poincaré, Lorenz, Minkowsky, Michelson and Morley and many others. He just added his own take on things, a small step, wee change in perspective; and this led to great advances. The same is true for every major step in human history.

"If I have seen further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants."

Isaac Newton (1642-1727)

Turtle · 11-02-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by PsyCho

Remember Einsteins theory of relativity was not actually discovered by Einstein per se; he really found a way of weaving work done by Galileo, Newton, Poincaré, Lorenz, Minkowsky, Michelson and Morley and many others. He just added his own take on things, a small step, wee change in perspective; and this led to great advances. The same is true for every major step in human history.

It is as you say, turtles all the way down.

PsyCho · 11-08-2006

Turtles, cheese, maybe some form of pasta type delight, ramen...

(Fractals) Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis

Hypography?

Share the love!

Sponsors

Friends