Thermodynamical five dimensional multiverse of six cycling universes

The Big Bang theory has many oddities as singularity ,inflation , horizon problem, galaxy formation etc... All models of the universe also assume its approximate homogenity inlarge scales. String theory is too complicated and will not explain everything. There should be a simple theory that would reasonable explain the structure and phenomes of the universe.
My theory comes purely from intuition without any mathematical background, but it will explain many problems that other theories and theoretical physics have. I hope this theory would give some new ideas for physicists.

Structure of the multiverse

The multiverse is a five dimensional structure of six fourdimensional universes (time is the fourth dimension). This might be hard to understand, but if you imagine three dimensional cube put to five dimensional universe. The cube has six sides and one space inside. Now in five dimensional world if you “look” inside the cube from every side the space inside the cube “looks” different. In reality the cube is infinite and also the space inside it infinite. So there are six infinite universes in one infinite space.
The particles of multiverse are supersymmetrical and have their antiparticles. There are also many particles that don't fit into our universe.
They will only live short time or they are hypotethical and are assumed to exist. This theory could also be a key to why quarks and leptons are groups of six. It could also explain some oddities in quantum physics. For example the uncertainty principle implies that space can never truly be empty. In reality, the quantum vacuum is filled with particles and antiparticles that briefly appear and then disappear just as quickly. This might be shifting of particles from an universe to an other.
Also with our particle and radiation construction we are not able to "see" what is happening in other universes.

Dark energy and dark matter

Recent studies have shown that most of our universe is unexplained dark energy and dark matter.
In my theory the dark energy and dark matter are mostly situated in other five universes. It is those particles and energy (radiation) from other universes.
We can sense them but we can not “see” them. The reason why we don’t have 1/6 of energy and matter is explained later.

Black holes and quasars

Black holes are “bubbles” in five dimensional multiverse. Inside these bubbles all matter is transformed to energy. Bubbles are formed in one universe and they will burst out in an other. In our universe these bursts are called Quasars and they are the beginning of cycle in our universe.
This is also what we have seen to happen 13.7 billion years ago. There actually was no Big Bang.
I should call it Great Fireworks, because it happened almost simultaneously all over space. Quasars brought enermous mount of energy to our universe as radiation. This energy transformed to particles and from particles to visible matter.

Thermodynamical cycling multiverse

Our universe is going towards heath death and the end of it’s cycle. When it has reached the point where entropy is in it’s maximum and temperature is near absolute zero the bubbles from other universe will burst new energy to our universe and the cycle begins again. Today we are about half way to cycle end. We have already lost some energy to bubble formation. This is why the ratio of visible energy and matter to dark energy and matter ist not exactly 1/6.
If we could imagine this five dimensional thermodynamical system it would best be explained as a bubbling system where energy is shifted from an universe to an other with energy bubbles.

Problem with this theory

Dark energy is a repulsive force that causes the universe to expand at an increasing rate.
This is one problem that I haven t solved. May be the this expansion is just an illusion while the time is relative and has something to do with gravity. I'm working with this.

Hi Ariston, welcome to the BAUT forum.

I've moved your thread to the Against The Mainstream section from the Astronomy section. This is on the presumption that you care to answer questions about your model and defend it against critical comments. Your lack of Math background may make your defense difficult, but you should at least read what people have to say about your idea.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

There are a few areas that could use some work but I am guessing that this is not your first version of a personal cosmology. You have included some pretty complex ideas.

Radiation is photons and the amount of energy of the photon determines the frequency. High frequency photons traveling at the speed of light from Quasars would have to then form matter as they speed through space.

If I read you right, you expect the photons to form that matter as they encounter each other after originating from distant quasars. And yet quasars themselves are composed of matter. Isn’t this the chicken and the egg problem? Radiation from Quasars causes the first matter to form and yet Quasars are themselves composed of matter.

Edit: Welcome to the forum, Ariston! I'm a fellow enthusiast, but I thought I could ask a few questions.

May I ask for elaboration on exactly how you define oddities? There are explanations for singularites, the expansion of the universe. By "horizon" am I correct in assuming you refer to "event horizon", form the aformentioned "singularity"? If so, can I assume you are puzzled by "Hawking Radiation?" I'm also guessing that "galaxy formation" is also related to singularity, and you are puzzled by supermassive black holes? Sorry if my assumptions are way off. I'm trying to dial in on this. I'm horrible at math and although I am an avid learner, I would have to have 15,000 fingers to count everyone here better at Astronomy than I am, eager and fascinated as I am. I notice you also state much the same later in the post, so maybe we will understand each other


May I ask how string theory is too complicated? Also, from what I understand (and if I'm wrong, fear not, I shall be corrected), the big problem with string theory is not that it doesn't explain everything, it's that it's fundamentally not testable.

Ah, the Holy Grail - the Theory of Everything. Scientist the world over dream at night of making that discovery. It would surely guarantee said person a most high place in history for millenia.

Nothing wrong with that, per se. I myself, as I noted above, am horrid with maths, and am strictly at enthusiast level in my Cosmology. We all have areas we can contribute. However, when a theory that is against the mainstream is put forth, extrordinary proofs are mandatory. These may be hard for you to produce without an extremely strong mathematical background. But if you are willing to brave that storm anyway, then I truly, genuinely salute you. I will discourse with you, as we are at the same level, but minds vastly more intelligent than mine are going to ask you some tough questions, so be prepared. And remember - if your theory is right, it should be able to handle any question that comes it's way.

That's a good thing to keep in mind. In order for your theory of everything to be true, or at least accepted, it must not only explain the universe and pass all tests, it must do so in a way that is simpler than the accepted science in any given area today. That is going to be tall order for an alternative theory of everything.

What is your definition of the 5th dimension?

The problem is that the differences in your cube, infinite of finite, are illusions of perspective. First, we don't know that the universe is a cube, and I don't see any evidence presented in the post. So a six-sided universe is flawed from the start. Assuming you could look into our universe, no matter which "side" you looked through, the objects in space are in the same relative position. The only thing changing is the position of the outside "looker". So the change attributed to the extra dimension is an illusion of perspective, wether the universe is infinite or finite. You also state that the universe is infinite - fair enough. But remember that an infinite universe doesn't have an "edge", let alone "sides", so it can't be a "cube", or even any other shape. But assuming even that were possible, you would not be left with 6 infinite universes in one infinite space. You would have 1 infinite 4 dimensional universe whose relative makeup had different perspectives based on which side of the "cube" the observer looked through, and this would be illusory.


Can you please elaborate on that statement? Which particles "don't fit", and why? Also, remember that since quarks (which you mention below) are fermions, they are antisymmetric in a baryon.

There is only an illusion of correlation there. Remember, you have yet to establish why there are 6 universes in 1 universe. Claiming 6 universes does not logically point to, by itself, a relation to the six quarks.

It might. Why is your theory a simpler and better explanation of vacuum space? And remember, quantum mechanics can suggest an infinite number of universes. Why 6?

It has not been, as far as I know, definitively proven either in your theory or in mainstream science that there is another universe to "see into". I do not, as I read it, understand how our theory will solve this.

We are dialing in a bit here. So, we exist in only 1 of your 5 universes which all occupy the same physical space? (Not counting my commentary above). I've heard of the gravity leak theory before. But your other universes must be nearly solid in order to "leak" in the 90% of the universe we can't account for. What are the mechanics behind this?

The quasars are already being adressed, so I shall skip that.

This sounds like 'brane theory. Are you familiar with it? Also, according to your definition, you could almost call the traditional Big Bang "the Great Fireworks", because space was "space" itself burst forth simultaneously in all directions, along with the energy it contained.

How are you measuring "maximum entropy", and what temperature needs to be near "absolute zero"? Are you referring to the ultimate end of an inflationary universe? Also, how did you come to the conclusion that "bubbles" from another universe will burst new energy into "ours"? And would this "other" universe be one of your 5 that co-exist in the same physical space, or another universe/space altogether? I ask, because this aspect appears on the surface to sound alot like 'brane theory in some aspects.

How is this determined in your multiverse model?

[quote="Ariston"]We have already lost some energy to bubble formation. This is why the ratio of visible energy and matter to dark energy and matter ist not exactly 1/6.[quote]

How do we know we've lost energy to bubble formation? And why isn't bubble formation a parallel function? Does it have to be one-way? Also, if we have lost this energy, why do, for example, the outermost edges of arms in spiral galaxies continue to travel at the same speed as the coreward portions? Remember, dark energy would be having an affect on today's universe, not merely on events in the past.

Similarities to 'brane theory aside, is there an explanation in your theory for why the other universes in our physical space have so much more matter, and we do not? What makes our universe different? Why do the bubbles apparently occur much more frequently in our universe than in the others?

The mathematical mechanics of dark energy is waaaaaay over my head. However, due to the apparent validity of tests performed thusfar, proposing that expansion of space is an illusion related to gravity would be the most difficult part of your theory, methinks. Remember, dark energy acts in opposition to gravity.

All of that said, remember, I'm in the enthusiast boat with you, and my post is extremely likely to be corrected, which I look forward to. That's how I learn. It may also make my questions to you easier to answer. Note, however, that when I'm corrected, I don't take it personally. That's going to be an important attitude for you to maintain as your alternative theory gets put through the proverbial ringer. Keep that in mind, and may your stay here be long and prosperous.

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Six universes are divided to three pairs of universes. Each pair is of matter and anti-matter and these pairs are mirrors of each other. Total energy of multiverse is zero. So philosophically there is nothing. We are only cause of random events in this 5-dimensional system. The universes will cycle forever. They have beginning and end.

Uh, ok. How about answering my questions?

And then, when you're done, can you elaborate on the mechanics of the 3 matter/antimatter universe pairs, and how you deduced this?

Then, please explain how you came to the conclusion that the universes will "cycle" forever.

And please do remember that you must answer every question put forth to you, although valid answers can be "I don't know...", or "I need a little time to work that out...".

__________________
"I have this theory that the Apollo missions were faked when NASA found out that general relativity was wrong because the Earth was expanding due to the Sun's iron core being influenced by magnetic waves from the electric universe after being perturbed by Planet X and thereby causing global warming. Where should I start a thread about this?" ~ ToSeek

"Those are the people that wonder how a thermos knows whether to keep something hot or keep something cold." ~ NeoWatcher

Hopefully this is true. Physicists prefer simple, elegant theories, but after all is said and done, the universe is not really obligated to conform to this preference.

If you're shooting for a simple, reasonable theory, I'd say you're off to a bad start!

__________________
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.

Big Bang - How you define oddities?
How could whole universe be born from one single point in nothingness?
The horizon problem results from the premise that information cannot travel faster than light. How are the galaxies homogeneously int the universe if everything begun from very spot?

String Theory- is not a proper physical theory. Why do we need 10, 11 or even 26 dimensions. How to you test string?

Theory of everything is not impossible, I believe it's simplier than we believe - Scientists have long time been on false tracks. (Big Bang and String Theory)

Question about intuition and mathematics - Einstein was very intuitive and he didn't do all maths himself. I am here just giving an alternative theory to give some different ideas. It can be true, partially true or totally false - who knows, but anyway it's a new way.

Fifth Dimension - The cube example was only to give some model of fifth dimension. This cube is a three dimensional object in five dimensional multiverse. But if we expand the cube to infinity - it will become the whole multiverse of sis universes. There's no more any cube.

Particles that don't fit to our universe - It's known that every particle has it's own antimaterial counterpart. These cannot live in our universe. There are also some particles that are supposed to exist but there is no clue what's their purpose. They are also the ones that don't fit to our universe.
My theory is not based on six quarks and six leptons - it's just coincidence.
I believe that there are more particles.

We cannot "see" other universes - the particles and radiation that form other universes that we cannot see have different behavior and spin and polarization might be keys to this.

Solid universes - Universes are not solid, think that matter we have takes almost nothing from space - in galactical level as in atomic level. So there is plenty of space for six universes.

The Great Fireworks mean that the quasar started new cycle in homogenous universe. So the quasar are situated evenly everywhere in universe. And this is also that has been found. This is not possible in the Big Bang theory.

The multiverse is a thermodynamical system that is shifting energy with three universes of matter and three universe of anti-matter. Total energy of system is zero, but the systems is continuosly cycling. If the would be only two universes it should come to balance situation - here we have 3 plus 3 and this sytem will not come balance.

We have come to half way of cycle - this is a rough counted value and is estimated from curves that show universe expansion.

The "bubbles" are the way how energy is shifted from one universe to an other. The bubbles contain only pure energy and energy is converted to matter and radiation different way in different universes. This is again spin and polarization question.

My theory is only other way of thinking structure of universe - you can take it seriously or not. It has some questions and problems - as do also other theories. At last does it change anything if we know the real structure of universe - and cannot affect it. Anyway I believe in cycling universe.