Is it possible that prior to our current universe's Big Bang, there was a universe made up of Dark Matter/Energy created from a prior Big Bang? Its physics/matter could have been different than what our current universe experiences, yet could share, for instance, gravitation. So our current universe would have overlayed an existing universe already filled with Dark Matter/Energy.


closed as off-topic by Gert, heather, Kyle Kanos, John Rennie, Qmechanic Jan 1 '18 at 16:57

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – Gert, heather, Kyle Kanos, John Rennie, Qmechanic
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi Compudoc, welcome to PhysicsSE. My two cents on this is based on probability. (Also if two universes " share" gravity, are they really seperate universes?) But mainly, if one universe popped up first, which I obviously can't argue with, since we are here, but later followed by another, should there not be more of them by now..... $\endgroup$ – user179430 Dec 31 '17 at 22:46
  • $\begingroup$ I suppose I'm not postulating that only 1 universe predated ours, but rather that 1 or more universes predated ours, and our interaction with 1 or more of them is experienced as Dark Matter/Dark Energy $\endgroup$ – Compudoc Jan 1 '18 at 5:39
  • $\begingroup$ Seriously, dark matter might be the start of new physics. $\endgroup$ – user179430 Jan 1 '18 at 15:39
  • $\begingroup$ @Compudoc-Why should 1 or more universes predated ours? Can't our universe predate 1 or more parallel universes? $\endgroup$ – descheleschilder Jan 6 '18 at 1:54
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, I wasn't addressing future universes. I also wasn't actually meaning parallel as much as I meant to use the term "simultaneous". And I would postulate that a big bang that happens tomorrow might create a universe with creatures in it puzzling over why they have dark matter that happens to be explained by our visible matter... $\endgroup$ – Compudoc Jan 7 '18 at 3:40

I like to limit myself to dark matter. A theory that was thought to explain dark matter was that a parallel Universe [which could be only 1(mm) removed from our Universe, i.e. in a fourth space dimension)], with which we could communicate only by means of gravity. Look for example here. But then came along the Bullet Cluster. Observations showed two blobs, left and right to the central blob, which consisted out of dark matter. If dark matter would be caused by the gravitation emerging from that parallel Universe (and, of course reaching us), then it's obvious that this theorized parallel Universe can't exist. This is thus inferred from observing the collision of two colliding blobs of matter. This collision appeared as it were, just in time to prove the parallel universe explanation for dark matter wrong.

If the theory of this parallel Universe (only gravitational in contact with our Universe) were true, then the two blobs of dark matter couldn't have appeared, because the gravitational effect of the matter in the parallel Universe wouldn't allow the two blobs of dark matter to form in our Universe. Normal matter in the parallel universe will always be gravitationally bound to normal matter in our universe.

By the way, the dark matter was detected by the deformation of the image of stars at the place where the dark matter resided. The light from the stars behind the dark matter was deflected by the curved spacetime around it.

  • $\begingroup$ At the risk of breaking a record for the lowest number question, I'll continue.... I believe that your answer implies that dark matter in a parallel Universe would be stationary. How is it that the 2 clusters in the Bullet Cluster were moving in different directions as opposed to both moving away from our Big Bang's point of origin? Is it possible that in the Bullet Cluster example, there was Dark Matter from 2 prior Universes, each moving away from their own Big Bang point of origins (i.e. moving in different directions), pulling with it the 2 clusters in the Bullet Cluster? $\endgroup$ – Compudoc Jan 1 '18 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ Let's leave the big bang out of it. The point is that the dark matter in the other Universe is just ordinary matter, which interacts with the matter in our universe by means of gravitation, and for the explanation of dark matter you can't make use of it in an attempt to explain it. So if two blobs of matter collide in our universe, there will also collide two parallel blobs in the parallel universe. With the result that no two blobs of dark matter can develop left and right (or at opposite positions) of the main blob. This is observed though, so the parallel universe theory is falsified. $\endgroup$ – descheleschilder Jan 1 '18 at 20:09

It's certainly possible, but how is this idea useful? Can you make predictions with it that can be checked against experiments or observations? If not, it's just not-very-useful speculation.

  • $\begingroup$ Is there a way to detect the motion of Dark Matter? Is it expanding from the same point of origin of our universe? $\endgroup$ – Compudoc Jan 1 '18 at 5:29

It is entirely possible there are other interacting fields that in some way are alternate worlds. I have entertained an idea that if the octonions play a role in physics there are then $7$ different worlds. These worlds are regions with different gauge field interactions. These $7$ systems of spinors or quaternions define different interactions.

We all learned the Cauchy-Riemann theorem in complex variables. If you have a map on the complex plane so that $F:z~=~x~+~iy~\mapsto$ $u~=~v~+~iw$ then we have to define a derivative $du/dz$ that is independent of the direction of the limit. We then have $$ \frac{du}{dz}~=~\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}~+~\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}~+~i\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}~-~\frac{\partial v}{\partial y}\right)~=~0. $$ The real and imaginary parts must then vanish independently and this gives the Cauchy-Riemann theorem.

Now let us consider the quaternions. We have three complex terms $\bf i$, $\bf j$ and $\bf k$ that obey $$ \bf i^2~=~\bf j^2~=~\bf k^2~=~-1,~{\bf ijk}~=~-1,~ {\bf ij}~=~{\bf k},~{\bf jk}~=~{\bf i},~{\bf ki}~=~{\bf j} $$ Now consider the quaternion ${\bf q}~=~a~+~{\bf i} x~+~{\bf j} y~+~{\bf k} z$ and a map $F:q~\mapsto~Q$ for ${\bf Q}~=~b~+~{\bf i} u~+~{\bf j} v~+~{\bf k} w$. Again we define $d{\bf Q}/d{\bf q}$ with the requirement there is no preferred direction for convergence. This means it is zero. The result is then that $$ {\bf i}\left(\frac{\partial v}{\partial z}~-~\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}~-~\frac{\partial b}{\partial x}\right)~+~ {\bf j}\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}~-~\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}~-~\frac{\partial b}{\partial y}\right)~+~ {\bf k}\left(\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}~-~\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}~-~\frac{\partial b}{\partial z}\right)~=~0. $$ These vanish separately and they form components of magnetic and electric field tensor. The first two in each of these is a form of $\nabla\times \vec A$ and the third a form of $\nabla\phi$. This then defines a Yang-Mills gauge field.

The octonions are defined by the Fano plane and the set of $7$ variables plus the same scalar. The set of three spinors defines by the links and circle in the diagram below

enter image description here

This means if physics has an octonionic basis there are then 7 possible gauge field systems, where what we know of as QCD plus the electroweak interaction is just one of them. There may also be an associated set of fermions with each of these that interacts only within their own gauge system. All these would have in common is gravitation. Since $28\%$ of the mass-energy in the universe with matter with only $4.5\%$ ordinary matter it is then interesting this factors fairly close to an idea of $7$ different matter-gauge field worlds.

This is highly speculative, but interesting to ponder. It is possible there are the six other worlds right here where we exist, but which we have no contact with at all.

  • $\begingroup$ -1 I'm sorry to say, but this answer clearly doesn't have a home in mainstream-physics, so it doesn't belong here at all. It may be interesting, but it's all too far-fetched. And the fact that 7 times 4.5 is fairly close to 28 can be just a coincidence (and in fact, 31.5 ain't that close to 28, so the theory doesn't fit the facts). $\endgroup$ – descheleschilder Jan 1 '18 at 5:01
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. This is a question that I answered by sort of going out on a limb. I tried to give caveats for this very hypothetical answer. It could of course easily be wrong. This is an idea of mine, where the supersymmetry of E8 is involved with this octonionic structure. I sometimes post way out things here to gauge the reaction. $\endgroup$ – Lawrence B. Crowell Jan 1 '18 at 17:17
  • $\begingroup$ I think you should have had to put some links in your answer, in order to make it clear for readers who don't know anything about quaternions, octonions or the Fono plane what the meaning of these (among other things) is. And of course, the question remains why physics should have an octonionic base. Is this only based on the fact that about one part of seven is about the same as 4,5 part of 28? $\endgroup$ – descheleschilder Jan 1 '18 at 20:39
  • $\begingroup$ If there are sectors of physics corresponding to each of eight unit octonions, wouldn't you expect them to interact more than just gravitationally? Unless you could map the whole octonionic algebra into purely gravitational relations. $\endgroup$ – Mitchell Porter Jan 2 '18 at 8:06
  • $\begingroup$ Quaternion subsets of the octonions have nonassociative relationships. These elements will not obey the Jacobi rule, which means there is no conservation law. These nonassociative relationships then mean something else. $\endgroup$ – Lawrence B. Crowell Jan 3 '18 at 12:42

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.