Multiverse or Universe?

Multiverse or Universe?

To me the word Universe is very limited in dimension.

Let me explain human limitations.

First we are limited by the speed of light.

Second we only see a past event and we will never be able to see the present form of the universe.

Our visual range is limited to about 256 colours out of millions of colours a computer can decipher.

Within that 256 only about 16 can be (based on binary arithmetic on which computer code is developed) clearly identified by our brain.

We make up with this visual deficiency by means of neural networks that have an imprint of memory of the colour so registered by repeated visual contact.

There is a delay of a few milliseconds for the neural message to reach the cortical centers and arouse the underlying networks of neural systems and an illusion of the colour range is imagined by the brain.

This imagination make us to be orientated in space and time.

Otherwise the original visual signal is upside down, right on left and even the two images that are produced on the eyes are crisscrossed.

Our medical teachers never told us that the vision is an illusion of some sort and never explained the real physiology behind true vision.

So, thinking of quantum level and making computers is far beyond human imagination.

Now coming to the universe and space.

The following account is outrageous.

I never believed the “Big Bang” and it is a rudimentary theory of the cosmos.

It never explained other dimensions beyond “Three D World”.

I will come to that later.

First of my hypothesis is that there is nothing called space or void.

In the universe there cannot be any void.

If there is a void anywhere in the universe, it would soon be filled with some form of energy entity not visible (our limitation) to our eyes.

It is so subtle that it even escapes our imagination.

Now a good entry point to dark matter.

The fact of the matter is darkness makes the visual identification of dark entities impossible.

We need a visual clue for hypothesis.

Even Edwin Hubble saw this fallacy.

Without giving a name to this energy he said the “Universe is Expanding”.

He had a scientific tool, “The Red Shift”.

Moving objects always bluff us into confusion and our brain makes us to believe that we are stationary and so “make the other moving objects as moving objects”.

Now the crunch point.

Matter world is only 5%.

Dark matter and Dark energy are 95%.

So we postulate our physics from 5% of observations and those laws cannot be extrapolated to even our Universe let alone Multiverse.

We need new physics to explain the expanding universe.

That is not an easy task and it is not the intention of this piece.

I have another problem in my mind.

Why our galaxy is flat and spiral?

Why is its shape not spherical like the objects in the matter world?

Objects take their shapes so that the gravitational force compresses the matter, hindering any “space” within.

There may be imaginary space but that space is also occupied by subtle energy form.

The gravitation force can never be uniform.

It got to be related to the mass and should wane off at a particular distance.

Otherwise the bigger object the sun will gobble our earth in no time and make it part of its mass of burning inferno.

In other words matter cannot remain stable.

It got to turn into energy and this may have some relationship to the movement of objects in energy space.

Still it does not explain the flatness and the spiral behaviour of the galaxies.

This is where I use the hypothesis that in the center of the spiral galaxy the matter turns into dark matter (if one looks at the pictures of Hubble Telescope, there is visible dark areas), hence expanding it from within.

Similarly at the periphery of the galaxy dark matter is changing into matter causing it to contract and offset the expanding force at the center.

This change is very subtle and barely perceptible due to the distance (from our eyes) from the center to the periphery.

That may explain the spiral behaviour but not the flatness.

I have to use string theory of mathematics and more dimensions (than 3 D) to explain the flatness.

Just like the theory of matter becoming dark mater and the vice versa, I have the “Zip Theory” of zipping and unzipping of the dimensions.

Each dimension is independent and there are “Worm Holes” separating one from another.

One cannot be in two dimensions one and the same time.

Remember the “Cat Theory” in the box that both dead and alive.

The zipping and unzipping according to the string theory probably happen at the“Worm Holes” and physics of it is difficult to comprehend in 3D mathematics.

These worm holes (vast in number) are on either side of the galaxies (should not be confused with “Dark Holes” of dark matter) and probably flatten the space fabric of the galaxies while at the same time stabilizing their gravitation forces.

In other words one galaxy does not eat up another galaxy by exerting superior force.

The balancing act of the forces may allow more dimensions to exist beyond our universe and the possibility of multiverse is theoretically feasible.

Each dimension has its own domain within the same space (space is a misnomer but a force itself) of existence but without interfering with each other.

The frequency of each existence or domain is independent in a vast spectrum of frequencies or domains giving rise to any possible variations of string theory of mathematics.

It makes numerous galaxies, dimensions and even multiverse possible.

The “Big Bang” does not explain all the vagaries possible.

It adds a time dimension (like God theory) of unidirectional expression and limits the probabilities to one universe.

That is a false premise by its own limitations.

Just like I do not propose void or space, I do not propose a beginning or end of “Universe of Things”.

The word universe limits the expression to ultimate reality.

There is nothing called ultimate reality but the perception of many (in plural) dimensions or realities.

Invisible “Black holes” are possible in this scenario expressed above. They gobble matter into non visible holes.

Their presence becomes visible only when they spew out galaxies from one end of its own dimension within our visible range. 

 

Beyond our visible range we can only postulate other dimensions.

All these variations, vagaries, inconsistencies and intricacies make us failing to grasp the bigger picture. 

 

The unifying theory has eluded us.

Are the dark forces and the gravity the only forces of nature?

Are there more forces eluding our comprehension?