Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis

[Reverend AtheiStar]

http://academia.wikia.com/wiki/K._Marinas&...erse_Hypothesis

 

Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis explains the redshifts of galaxies varying in distance by proposing two things:

 

TeraQuasars

 

New kinds of collapsed masses called TeraQuasars. These are proposed celestial objects with the proposed mass of trillions of quasars located behind the furthest galaxies and stars we can see in the universe - see Hubble Deep Field.

 

Gravitational redshift is the decrease of a photon's frequency with increasing gravitational potential. This kind of redshift is directly linked with the curvature of the gravitational field.

Angular diameter distance of distant galaxies can be explained as being an effect caused by the massive gravitational lensing of TeraQuasars.

 

Concordance with WMAP

 

To explain the Cosmic Background Radiation, the Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis requires that TeraQuasars are surrounded by an environment which has a similar (if not exactly the same) composition as the one described in the Big Bang theory of the "early" universe. This analogous to quasars in the centers of galaxies which have a radiation intense environment surrounding them. This enviornment would be a shell surface that today's cosmologists call the surface of last scattering. However, in contrast to the idea of todays cosmologists - that the surface of the last scattering is a spherical shell concentric to the point of observation - in this Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis, the surface of the last scattering occurs at ellipsoid-like surfaces of several TeraQuasars - at the same temperature (~3000K) and redshift (~1100).

 

Contrast from Black Holes

 

TeraQuasars cannot be thought of as black holes with the mass of trillions of galaxies. That is, because it is required by the Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis that the TeraQuasars are surrounded by low entropy. This is the same kind of low entropy required by the early universe of the Big Bang Theory. A possible candidate is the Gravastar, which is described as having a very low entropy, in contrast to the high (even maximum) entropy of black holes. Also, with the Gravastar, matter has the ability to bounce back away, a theoretical feature which is necessary in this Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis. Experiments will be needed to test theories involving Gravastar-like objects. The discovery of such an object would be consistent with this Cyclic Multiverse Hypothesis.

 

Contrast from Cyclic Big Bang/Big Crunch

 

Instead of an inflating singularity that collapses upon itself and reinflates etc., the Cyclical Multiverse Hypothesis proposes that the TeraQuasars are the source of new matter (predominately hydrogen) and that old and new matter can enter and exit the multimillion-light-year thick atmosphere of TeraQuasars. A fractal a with pattern that repeats towards the infinitely large scales and towards the infinitely small scales is necessarily heterogeneous in space at all levels, whereas many cyclic universe models based on the Big Bang Theory suggest that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic at large scales.

 

More on the size of TeraQuasars

 

Since TeraQuasars would be very large and exist behind a significant fraction of the sky, even more than the Andromeda Galaxy which itself spans 8 moon diameters, they would appear basically uniform and isotropic when viewed through the microwave spectrum. The TeraQuasars could also be accompanied by smaller partners, or GigaQuasars, which would be like TeraQuasars, but many times smaller.

 

Hyperbolic Space-Time

 

Hyperbolic space-time is an idea from General Relativity - see Hyperbolic geometry and General Relativity.

Observations of galactic rotation velocities (see Galaxy rotation problem) and the brightness of distant supernovas (see Dark Energy) cause the author to suggest that the space outside our solarsystem, between the stars and between the galaxies is hyperbolic.

 

Consequences of Hyperbolic Geometry:

 

Stars and galaxies would be dimmed by a factor different than the inverse-square law.

The low-density space between the stars and between the galaxies would act like a concave (zoom out) lens. The parallaxes of stars would be smaller than it would be without the Hyperbolic curvature of space-time, which means that stars and galaxies would be closer than what would be believed if the space between stars was Euclidean. The galaxy would be smaller in diameter than it appears, however, the star count would remain valid. The arms of the Milky Way galaxy would be "lubricated" since the stars would have tendency to repel one another, like protons in a nucleus. Stars would flow faster than they would otherwise. Despite this, the collective gravity of galaxies would keep stars inside a spiral disk, ellipsoid, or irregular shape. That means that the hyperbolic space between the stars is encapsulated by the greater gravity of the whole.

Having negative curvature between galaxies in clusters would make them appear farther apart than they really are. The required dark matter abundance would be reduced significantly.

The observable part of our universe would be smaller than it appears, yet remains stable due to local gravitational repulsion within the gravity of the whole.

 

(more on site)

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I cut the beginning off, initially thinking it sounded better, but in retrospect I think it's a bit confusing the way I set it up. Here's the opening paragraph:

 

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

[Brother Jeff]

Very interesting! But, I prefer the universe as it is because the bible says so - small, three-tiered, and featuring a Sky Kingdom and a flat earth. I like thinking of the stars as lights from Heaven stuck in the solid dome firmament. I see Jesus every time I look up! Glory! lol... Seriously, interesting stuff, but I think the Big Bang is pretty much proven, isn't it?

[JGJ@ReligionisBullshit]

A good book for beginners on the subject is Our Living Multiverse.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Very interesting! But, I prefer the universe as it is because the bible says so - small, three-tiered, and featuring a Sky Kingdom and a flat earth. I like thinking of the stars as lights from Heaven stuck in the solid dome firmament. I see Jesus every time I look up! Glory! lol... Seriously, interesting stuff, but I think the Big Bang is pretty much proven, isn't it?

 

This model would include multiple big bangs and big crunches. It's saying that the big bang is actually very, very tiny and pretty insignificant in the big picture. The part where it gets really weird, in this model, though, is where she says the universe is contained within an atom. If you look at the first illustration she shows this concept. Our universe is within an atom which is one in a collection of molecules which comprises a person. In essence, every atom conatins a universe. I think that part is a bit wacky, to be sure, but I like her ideas on how the universe is organized.

 

p.s. I'm thinking this girl has either dropped acid a few times, smoked a lot of weed, or both. It just really sounds like one of those ideas.

[Friendly Misanthrope]

I kind of like brane theory, which says the big bang happend when two P-branes collided. That just sounds funny to me, I wonder why?

 

Pea Brains

 

Be forewarned, though, the site loads slow as molasses (at least for me).

[Reverend AtheiStar]

I kind of like brane theory, which says the big bang happend when two P-branes collided. That just sounds funny to me, I wonder why?

 

Pea Brains

 

Be forewarned, though, the site loads slow as molasses (at least for me).

 

I have cable. It took about a second and a half. Perhaps you should invest in it.

 

I like the other name they provided better: The Ekpyrotic Universe I've always been a fan of the term "pyro" well, because I've always ben a fan of fire. lol... Sounds cool. Who knows. Just another possibility. Sounds sketchy, but hey, with cosmology there's plenty open to discussion.

[HuaiDan]

Our universe is within an atom which is one in a collection of molecules which comprises a person.

 

Why a person?

 

It seems, within the universe or multiverse as a whole, you'd be more likely to find atoms in, say, cosmic dust. I think the number of atoms in cosmic dust exceeds those found in humans by an order of magnitude of one of those infathomably large scientific notation numbers. ISn't hydrogen the most common element in the universe? Then it is way more likely that our universe is contained within an atom of stellar or interstellar hydrogen.

[Reverend AtheiStar]

Our universe is within an atom which is one in a collection of molecules which comprises a person.

 

Why a person?

 

It seems, within the universe or multiverse as a whole, you'd be more likely to find atoms in, say, cosmic dust. I think the number of atoms in cosmic dust exceeds those found in humans by an order of magnitude of one of those infathomably large scientific notation numbers. ISn't hydrogen the most common element in the universe? Then it is way more likely that our universe is contained within an atom of stellar or interstellar hydrogen.

 

I guess it's more personal when a person is housing the atom that our universe is contained in.

[Friendly Misanthrope]

Our universe is within an atom which is one in a collection of molecules which comprises a person.

 

Why a person?

 

It seems, within the universe or multiverse as a whole, you'd be more likely to find atoms in, say, cosmic dust. I think the number of atoms in cosmic dust exceeds those found in humans by an order of magnitude of one of those infathomably large scientific notation numbers. ISn't hydrogen the most common element in the universe? Then it is way more likely that our universe is contained within an atom of stellar or interstellar hydrogen.

 

I suppose that was just showing one possibility. If I understand the basic idea behind this model, there is infinite progression above our scale, as well as below, so since humans are possible, as evidenced by our presence, if you have an infinity of self contained universes within the atoms of ohter universes, then there are bound to be more universes with humans in them than just our scale. Er, something like that.

[HuaiDan]

Still, not every point on a fractal is (indeed very few are) recursive when expanded toward its infinite value. Er, something like that. SOmeone might know what I'm trying to say.

 

For example, picture a fractal image. Now, there are some interesting points on that image, if you blow up the image and expand the image detail as you "dive into" it , that will repeat back to the image you started with, or a variation of it. However, there are very few places on the fractal where this actually occurs.

Our universe is most likely located in the molten core of some planet, some interstellar dust, 'dark' matter (which according to theory comprises most of the known universe).

Like to imagine what a photon in the metaverse would become in our microverse. Photons interact with nuclear subatomic particles all the time.

Perhaps in the metaverse time is different relative to ours. I would imagine the speed of light would slow to a literal snail's pace if not much slower.

 

Perhaps the universe is a mere photon. Perhaps the cyclical bang-crunch-bang-crunch corresponds to a wavelength of light. It is impossible to reconcile the wavelength energy of light as EMR with the particle energy of a photon, which light is both. Perhaps the bang-crunch is where the nexus occurs. In a multiverse sense, we are massless, all energy. Just a drug induced speculation.