So I was showering after watching a documentary on Stephen Hawking and came to two absolutely mind-boggling scientific epiphanies. I don’t know what you guys do when you shower but I think about stuff. Anyway, I was sure that I had discovered something ground-breaking but, as usual, somewhere some place somebody had thought of it before me. Nevertheless, I thought I’d take the liberty of naming this theory after myself to appease the disappointment of not being the first.

The Prophet’s Multiverse was a theory I came to after remembering Hawking’s comment that the universe is essentially a black hole working in reverse. Black holes crush matter into a singularity whereas our universe expanded from a singularity. The implication of this is that every singularity contains a universe in it. That means that every black hole has a universe at its core and that our universe is just the singularity at the core of an even larger universe. The size of things may feel mind boggling, especially when there are roughly 100 million stellar-mass black holes in the universe. However, keep in mind that we, as humans, have constantly been corrected in our assumption that we understand how big things are. We see more and more of the universe over time and realise more and more how small we are. This is just another step in that direction.

To help visualise this, consider yourself in the room of an enormous building. Each level has many rooms, but there are no doors or windows, just four solid walls. To us, that room is the entire universe. There is nothing outside of it because we have no reasonable evidence to think that anything exists outside of the room (especially since there are no doors or windows). In reality, however, there are many more rooms in the building, all of which think that they are all that exist. Imagine if I put doors in the walls but they were all locked. That’s what this current stage is. We have reason to believe that other rooms (or universes) exist now, but we have no method to reach them. Now all we’re looking for is the key.

Honestly, it’s an amazing idea to think that we are just a black hole’s singularity in another universe. Likewise, imagine the universes inside one of our black holes. They probably think that they are the only universe without ever realising that they are contained within our own universe.

Before people get lost at this point, it’s probably worth pointing out that a singularity is an infinitely small point with infinite density, mass and gravity. This means that the singularity that contained our universe (released by the big bang) contained every ingredient necessary to make our universe. Likewise, black holes in our universe are sucking ingredients into their singularities, ingredients that may be used to create their universe. The big bang itself is open to further examination. Hawking predicts that black holes will dissipate, releasing Hawking radiation. It’s possible that this Hawking Radiation is just a big bang for a smaller universe. It only looks smaller to us because we’re infinitely larger. Similarly, our big bang could just be the dissipating radiation of a universe that is even larger than us.

Anyway, apparently a Polish cosmologist and some other physicists have already come up with this same theory as me (though we differ on the specifics). I just wanted to write it down because it feels like a waste of a shower-time epiphany.

My second theory is the Prophet’s Dimension, and is basically proof of more dimensions that exist. As far as I know, nobody has thought of this one yet. This is a bit hard to explain with just words and is impossible to draw so you’re going to have to use your imagination. As we know, the universe has no edge. There’s two possible explanations for this: nothing exists outside of the universe, thus there can be no edge, or the universe loops back on itself (the same way as Earth does, which is why we don’t fall off the edge of the Earth). I find the first explanation to be conceptually difficult because that would imply the possibility of standing at the “edge” of the universe and simply being unable to move any farther or see any farther, therefore I go with the second assumption.

For the universe to loop on itself, we have to conceptualise a three dimensional loop (ignoring time because time can be a linear infinite) – EDIT: When I say a linear infinite, I mean time is a curve with a minimum value of 14.6 billion years (beginning of universe) and a potential maximum value of infinity; remember that time can only travel in one direction – the positive. It’s impossible to draw a 3D loop so here’s where the imagination comes in. Let me just justify my last statement (for those who are thinking of spheres). A circle is a one dimensional loop because a line is one dimensional and it loops back on itself to form a circle (which is then 2D). A sphere is a two dimensional loop because it is a 3D object, and using the same logic of the circle, it becomes a 2D loop. The long version is, if you draw a circle, then rotate it along the diameter (to represent the new axis and hence dimension) you get a sphere.

Ok, back to the point at hand. Since it is impossible to draw a 3D loop, I’m going to represent the 3rd dimension with a 2D plane. So let’s think of a sheet of paper. The paper is 2D (or 3D if you consider the thickness). Imagine that the surface of the paper page is 3D. Now, the paper is rectangular so it has an edge. We know the universe has no edge, so the paper has to be folded into a sphere (don’t ask me how, just imagine a spherical page). Tada, we now have a universe with no edge, where the 3D universe is contained on the 2D surface of the page. If it helps you understand, imagine the page’s thickness to be a dimension, in which case the page is indeed 3D, but keeping in mind that the thickness has to be infinite (and thus loop back on itself) because the universe has no edge no matter which direction you travel. I have no trouble substituting the 3D universe with the 2D page so I’m going to continue with that description (you’re just simplifying an entity by making another entity represent it, such as x+y=z and x+y+a = 1, therefore z+a =1; it’s just substitution to help you think easier).

So, we have a spherical object but it’s hollow in the middle. What does that mean? It means there’s space contained within our universe’s boundaries that we cannot access no matter which direction we travel (remember, the page represents a 3D space, so no matter what direction you travel, you’re still travelling on that page). The implication of this is that there’s more dimensions in our universe than we can physically access, and that there could be so much more to the universe than we can physically see.

If we tie this theory to the one above, we can assume that larger universes than ours have more dimensions (because a singularity is one dimensional but it contains a three dimensional universe).

Anyway, those are the two things I came up with while I was showering. Pretty mind boggling stuff huh? Science is so cool.

## 6 comments

Comments feed for this article

July 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm

UsualfoolI can’t say that I’ve ever come up with scientific theories in the shower, but I do a lot of my best writing in there.

However, because I’m a logician and can’t help myself, this is hasty generalization or (if you’re feeling feisty) the inverse gamblers fallacy.

July 31, 2012 at 2:43 pm

UsualfoolOops, for got to include the quote I was referencing: “The implication of this is that every singularity contains a universe in it.”

July 31, 2012 at 2:55 pm

scepticalprophetThat’s a reasonable assumption. The post isn’t really a treatise so there’s a lot of gaps where I got tired or my mind skipped over things, and I write without any editing so I’m bound to meander a bit without fully establishing a point (if the point appears proven to me, I tend to forget that I still need to prove it to my reader). I have two follow up posts on this topic that should flesh out the idea a bit more.

In regards to your quote in question, the implication of every singularity containing a universe is not based solely on the realisation that our universe came from a singularity (which would be an inverse gambler’s fallacy). It’s also based on two additional concepts (probably more but I can only think of two main ones right now). First, the implication is that even if a

fully formeduniverse does not exist in a singularity, thepotentialto form a universe does (by nature, two things with identical characteristics have the potential to cause identical actions). This broadens the statement “contains a universe” because the definition of a universe is obscure. The singularity undoubtedly contains everything required for a universe to exist, so is that the same as saying it contains a universe? Second, and this is the scientific one, Hawking’s Information Paradox requires singularities to contain alternate universes to maintain the laws of conservation of mass/energy. The validity of this would end up being a Hawking-Susskind debate but I personally side with Hawking because of the nature of physics – everything should be connected in a simple, elegant model. Hawking’s multiverse would validate (or provide very strong evidence for) string theory.Thanks for reading, not many people are up to the challenge!

December 8, 2012 at 5:08 am

Haniff DinThis is a subject I’ve deeply understand and LOVE.

First off, let’s just the first concept if infinite universes – just accept it as true. IT IS. Scientists are only just getting their head around this.

Scientists are only just grasping a whole universe can be described in 2D – just like a hologram as it where.

What does this mean?

Imagine this universe described as a hologram, on an infinite 2D plane.

It’s 1 planck length thick as it were, it’s resolution and time is 1 planck length. So the universe is infinite ( they just figured this one out ).

So now imagine infinite layers of these 2D planes where each one describes a WHOLE infinite universe.

So you kind in a 3D space can have an INFINITE number of universes!

Each universe appears to be 3D when actually it’s 2D.

I know that Stephen Hawking is TOTALLY on the right track, you must fully accept infinite realities and infinitely sized universes to make any sense of the universe.

So then imagine an infinite plane, that is our universe.

Imagine a black hole, it actually leaks into another infinite plane… i.e universe.

So Hawking is totally and utterly correct on his new theories.

What’s missing is the mathematics to describe the universe as an infinite 2D plane.

The mathematics doesn’t exist yet fully.

It only works if you assume infinite realities, and most scientists will fall into the trap of until you prove infinite realities I won’t believe it.

You mathematics is still our human representation of what we think.

numbers are much more deeper than symbols.

This is why when they get infinities they can’t handle it and cosmology breaks down. The maths just isn’t fully there yet to explain infinities.

cantor went insane because his peers did not understand his revelations on infinity. Our way of describing the universe is maths is light years away from the true reality of the universe.

You can explain fermat’s last Theorem in actual fact really simply in one page using higher dimensional maths.

The current accepted solution is incredibly long winded, because the solver is assuming we live in a 3D universe and constrained his maths and thinking to that. This is the entire problem with maths to describe the universe.

If you just accept reality is infinite, and there are infinite worlds, at every point, and every point has infinite energy available to it, and time is an illusion, and doesn’t actually exist – things get a lot easier.

Stephen Hawking is right of course – but there are many deep problems in maths on how to describe infinite realities – that nobody has or ever will probably figure out any time soon.

The only gauge I know, when things will change, is when free energy is “out” in the open. When you stop paying for electricity and can generate it for free, then the maths and physics will be up to explaining reality.

We are currently severely limiting our selves in our thinking by just waiting for physical evidence of the multiverse. ( You don’t actually need it !)

Like breaking the 100m record for running, it’s only when people think it’s possible to break it they can.

This can happen today, if people in physics open their minds like hawking has – there are infinite realities. Just accept it and quickly move on, don’t worry about how or why it’s like this, or even trying to prove in physically. Just accept it’s all a holographic illusion in the first place !

Then you’ll know you can never really prove what’s outside reality, as it’s all in actual fact a mental construct in the first place. Everything is infinite, so anything is actually possible if enough people believe in it.

I just pray Hawking can nail the maths, as reality is infinite and his mind set is definitely on the right track.

It’s our beliefs that are only holding us back right now – nothing else.

December 8, 2012 at 10:14 am

scepticalprophetI’m torn between the holographic principle and a cyclical universe. The holographic principle was popular because it offered an alternative to the information paradox but as far as I know, the only follow up experiment aimed at proving it was criticised for being off-topic.

As for multiverses though, I also think they most likely exist. The only question that remains for me is what type of multiverse.

December 8, 2012 at 6:28 pm

Haniff DinDon’t be torn. You can have cyclical and holographic!

It’s both !

If you observe light it’s a particle a guy got a noble prize for that.

If you observe light it’s a wave, another guy got a noble prize for that.

Which is correct? They both are! Hawking is more correct than most as he fully accepts the true nature of reality, it’s a multi-verse.

There are infinite versions of you!

As the universe is expanding is has a finite area that will expand forever. Imagine the flat infinite plane. The universe is actually an ever expanding “circle”. Now the circle is holographic and creates the 3D universe, but the “circle” from the holographic point of view is actually a Toroid – doughnut. Everything is a doughnut, even me and you.

This is exactly why hawking and others can’t pin down the maths – to describe something that’s many things at once. It’s not one thing, but many ALL AT ONCE. It’s a infinite plane, on which a point expands into a circle, that’s a toroid. Each point is also a toroid – it’s fractal.

So that maths has to describe the features of an infinite place, a holographic circle, which creates a multi-dimensional toroid, which creates the 4D universe. Every point in the universe contains every other point, in every universe.

So the maths has to be able to take a x,y point on the plane, map it to a holographic circle, then circle to a toroid, that then which is also a hyper dimensional fractal. Every point is connected to every other point. We are all connected. In-fact we are all the same thing – god.

Think of god as a pixel. one pixel. Then that pixel moves so fast like scan lines on a tv screen, you see a moving image. Bit in reality it’s the same one pixel. hence, everything is connected and we are all the same. it’s that as well. In the same way you draw pixels and create an infinite fractal on a computer screen.

When the universe was just expanding from a dot into a small circle you could easily see it’s cyclic, but now it’s massive it would take you literally forever to hit a cycle.

You can see how if you think it must be this OR it must be that you maths will never be right. It’s everything ! It’s both and a lot more.

The funny thing is, all this knowledge is ancient, the buddhist, vedic hindus and jewish kabbala all accurately describe the universe as a hyper dimensional fractal in infinite dimensions.

This is why they explain how there is no time and you experience many thousands of lifetimes ALL AT ONCE.

If you take some LSD or DMT and really go for it, you’ll see all this.

Why do you think I’m so certain ? 😉

Scientist should, but the illuminati don’t want people to discover the real truth about reality – that we don’t need oil an energy anti-gravity, is all just freely available.