1. The Finite Vs Infinite Universe

The Newtonian universe was one in which there was an absolute finite space in which the basic building blocks of the universe, such as stars, were embedded. This view was a quantum leap from the earlier view, based on the Greek model in which stars and other celestial objects were fixed objects attached to transparent material spheres, which prevented them from falling down. Indeed, until the time of Newton, the Ptolemaic-Aristotal universe was the dogma of the day, and it was believed by most scientists that Earth was the central sphere around which seven transparent spheres circled, carrying the moon, the sun, and the five known planets: Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. The the fixed stars were attached to the outermost, eighth sphere which circled around Earth, the Sun, and the five planets. The Earth, itself, was motionless, and thus day and night were caused by these rotating spheres. However, whereas Earth, as taught by Aristotle and the Catholic Church, was corruptible, the circle itself was perfect, divine, and thus unchanging.

When Einstein (1915) proposed his General Theory of Relativity some ninety years ago, many still believed that all major constituents of the universe were fixed, stationary, and finite, and that there was only one galaxy, our Milky Way which constituted the universe. The revolution ushered in by Corpernicus and those who immediately followed in his wake (until Kepler), was still rooted in the ancient past and Biblical teachings. Although Corpernicus placed the sun in the center of the solar system, and rearranged the planets, he retained the closed system of outer circles in which were embedded the fixed stars. Further, even though the universe was finally endowed with fluidity following the discoveries of Galieo and Kepler, it nevertheless remained finite.

However, if this view were correct, Einstein reasoned, then the gravitational pull of these constituents should make the universe collapse. Therefore, Einstein introduced his famous cosmological constant, essentially a repulsive force that would counterbalance the attractive gravitational force.

Shortly thereafter there were two dramatic discoveries which completely altered the picture of a single unified universe. The first was due to Astronomer Edwin Hubble (1929, 1937), who discovered that the basic constituents or building blocks of the universe were not stars, but rather huge conglomerations of stars called galaxies. The second discovery was the fact that these galaxies appeared to be rushing away from each other--the universe was expanding. In an expanding universe there was no need for Einstein's counterbalancing cosmic repulsion and Einstein dismissed his "cosmological constant" as his greatest blunder.

Not all scientists have accepted the concept of a finite universe (e.g., Hoyle et al., 1993, 1994; Joseph, 2009, 2010). The debate between finite vs infinite has in fact raged for thousands of years. The Greek philosopher Democritus, for example taught that the cosmos was eternal and had undergone cycles of order and disorder for all eternity. By contrast, Aristotle believed the universe was fixed, finite, and had a beginning, and this theory was accepted as part of Catholic Church dogma and became the accepted view within the scientific community. Therefore, in the 16th century when Giordano Bruno proposed the Universe was infinite and that there were an infinite number of worlds, just like Earth, the Roman Inquisition burned him at the stake for heresy.

The debate continued well into the 20th century, with esteemed scientists such as Sir Fred Hoyle, Herman Bondi and, and J. V. Narlikar championing what has been called the "steady state" theory of an infinite universe (Hoyle et al., 1993, 1994). An expanding universe, and later, the discovering of the Cosmic Microwave Background, nearly spelled the death to the steady state theory of the cosmos.

Hubble's (1929) discovery of an expanding universe, however, was predated by a few years earlier by Monsignor Georges Lemaître (1927), a high ranking Catholic Priest, who had come to similar conclusions. Lemaître seized upon Hubble's findings as additional proof of a finite, expanding universe that must have had a beginning, and thus a creator (1931a,b). Lemaître called his theory the 'hypothesis of the primeval atom" and described it as "the Cosmic Egg exploding at the moment of the creation." Hoyle ridiculed the idea, and sarcastically called it "the big bang." According to Hoyle, the universe may be expanding, but it is doing so in the act of continual creation; that is, it expands as new matter is continually created (Hoyle et al., 1993).

The debate may have continued to this day if not for the discovery, in 1964 by radio astronomers Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson, of what has been interpreted as a cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR). The consensus is this radiation was produced by a big bang, before the formation of stars and galaxies, and that the current CMBR is a relic from the past (Ohanian 1994, Wheeler 1973).

2. The Big Bang Controversy: Expansion and Dark Matter, Dark Energy

Not all cosmologists accept the big bang theory. However, if cosmology were a democracy, then the big bang has the most votes. Therefore, it is believed that anywhere from 13 billion to 15 billion years ago, all the matter and energy of the cosmos was compacted into a point of singularity, which resulted in a tremendous release of energy (the big bang) and the birth of this universe, followed by galaxies, stars, planets, and then life on Earth. The force of this explosion also created momentum where all matter is being pushed outward, such that galaxies are also rushing outward. The universe, therefore, is expanding.

A finite, expanding universe, however, raises, again, age old questions. Will the universe continue to expand, or will it collapse in a "big crunch"? The various answers offered depend upon assumption about the material content or density of the universe. If there is too much matter, then the expansion would halt and reverse and then collapse back into a point of singularity, and, presumably, undergo yet another explosion--and this view is reminiscent of the position of Democritus; i.e. the universe is eternal and undergoes cyclic periods of order and disorder. If this cycle has been ongoing for all eternity, then, the universe is not infinite in size but infinite in age. A cyclic, infinite, eternal universe, however, does not require a "creator" and this view is not compatible with Western religious or Catholic Church teachings and is therefore not popular with most scientists.

Therefore, the consensus at present is that there is insufficient matter to halt the expansion. Thus, the universe was created once, and will expand forever, and this view is consistent with Western religious teachings. In consequence, some cosmologists have ridiculed these theories as "religion masquerading as science" (Joseph 2009, 2010) and have pointed out numerous flaws as well as what is claimed to be disconfirming, or at least, inconsistent evidence (Eastman 2010; Ratcliffe, 2010).

Problems with the big bang theory have not gone unnoticed among supporters and supplementary theories have been proposed to explain what appears to be discrepancies. For example the velocities along the edge of a galaxy, instead of sharply falling off has fattened out. Then there is the problem of gravitational lensing; i.e. the bending of light, and explained gravitational influences which suggest that much of the matter of the universe has not yet been detected. This has led astronomers to invoke "dark matter" which, for reasons not well understood, exists but cannot be detected.

Some astronomers have suggested that this "dark matter" might be related to supermassive black holes within the center of galaxies, tiny black holes which have been expelled from galaxies, or other black bodies or brown dwarf stars which are too faint to be detected, or even massive neutrinos which were otherwise thought to be massless.

However, if "dark matter" exists, then there may be sufficient material content to halt, and even reverse the expansion of the universe, again resulting in a big crunch, and perhaps a repetition of the cycle.

Mass bends space-time. Therefore, according to Einstein, due to the material content in the universe, space should be curved or roughly speaking bent. Yet according to the models developed by some cosmologists, the universe appears to be flat, like a pancake.

There are yet other problems with the big bang theory which also raise interesting questions. Consider, for example, the problem of an event horizon. If the Big Bang was an uncontrolled random event and blew different parts of the universe in different directions, then some of those parts may have no connection to the other parts, as they were disconnected in the earliest stages of the creation event. This raises the possibility that these disconnected parts might be completely different from one another, having developed independently, just as ancient people from different and vastly distant parts of the world might develop their own language, culture, and style of dress. Yet, many astronomers claim the universe is by and large uniform, though this view has also been challenged, most notably, by string theory and the multiverse hypothesis.

If the universe were uniform, that is, the same everywhere, this implies interconnectedness and direct, instantaneous communication between all the different regions of space-time. As an analogy we can look at how people from vastly distant parts of the world are now able to communicate almost instantaneously such that culture, architecture, and style and manner of dress become increasingly similar and where news can be shared simultaneously with people all over the globe.

However, the uniformity of a vast universe and thus an instantaneous form of intercommunication is in direct violation of Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, according to which no signal can travel faster than light. Instantaneous communication and interconnectedness is impossible, if according to standard cosmological models different regions of the cosmos are at least 13 billion light years apart. In fact, this is a gross underestimate. The observable region of the cosmos that we can observe and which we inhabit is believed to be almost 100 billion light years in diameter. So why should the universe be uniform, and flat, even after 13 billion years have passed and with distances of 100 billion light years separating the most distant, observable galaxies?

The answer might lie in how we define "uniform." Further, if after the "big bang" the expansion of the universe was faster than the speed of light (Sidharth 2003; Zee 1982), then the super fast expansion in the initial stages might smoothen out any distortion or curvature effects in space, leading to a flat universe. However this view is also problematic. A Euclidean flat universe is indicative of a non-expanding universe (e.g., Montanus, 2005).

Certainly in terms of the dispersion of matter, the universe is not uniform, but clumpy; galaxies often clump or string together, creating what have been called "great walls" and "rivers of galaxies" with vast empty spaces separating different "walls" and "clumps." This leads to the question: why? This has been explained in terms of density fluctuations resulting in more matter being present in a given region and then the increases in gravity drawing in yet additional matter. Density fluctuations would also effect the cosmic background radiation and this explains why it is not uniform but variable and anisotropic.

Then there is the problem of expansion. Doesn't cosmic expansion violate the conservation of energy (Baryshev, 2008)? Further, data based on red shifts has been challenged (Joseph 2009), and considerable evidence has been presented indicating non-expansion redshifts (Ratcliffe, 2010). In fact, redshift stars have been identified with ages far greater than current estimates for the age of a Big Bang universe (Jain and Dev, 2006).

Compounding these problems, recent observations appear to indicate the expansion is speeding up. Specifically, in 1998, Perlmutter and co-workers, and Schmidt and co-workers after carefully observing very distant supernovae came to the conclusion the universe was not slowing down, but was actually accelerating; indicating that the universe may continue to expand eternally, presumably propelled by dark energy. How can an explosive event from over 13 billion years ago cause the universe to suddenly speed up 13 billion years later?

To answer these question, some cosmologists have proposed the existence of "Dark Energy" which is fueling the surge. Dark energy is an unknown and mysterious form of energy that brings into play repulsion, over and above the attractive force of gravitation. All this is reminiscent of Einstein's greatest blunder namely the cosmic repulsion itself. However there is a problem. What is dark energy?

Physicists speak of such an energy from what is called the Quantum Vacuum. The idea here is that there cannot be a background vacuum with exactly zero energy as exact values of energy are forbidden by Quantum Theory. Only the average energy could be zero. In other words energy would be fluctuating about a zero value. This is called a Zero Point Field. Theoretically, what happens in the vacuum is that electrons and positrons are continuously created, out of nothing as it were, but these pairs are very shortlived. Almost instantaneously they annihilate each other and release energy, which in turn again manifests itself as electron-positron pairs. These effects could lead to a cosmic repulsion. The problem, however, is that the value of the cosmological constant, and the strength of the cosmic repulsion would be much too high, and this is contrary to observation; the so called "cosmological constant problem" (reviewed in Sidharth 2002a).

And like an "evil twin" another dark force has been hypothesized to fill the missing gap in the universe, i.e. "dark matter." However, what exactly "dark matter" might be is unknown. In fact, these dark entities, in order to exist, require non-baryonic physics (Capistrano, 2009). In fact, after over 25 years of searching, there is no conclusive evidence for the existence of dark matter (e.g., Freeman and McNamara, 2006). Although Clowe et al. (2006) claim to have proof, it has been pointed out that this "proof" consists of extremely questionable assumptions (Eastman 2010).

Yet another dramatic discovery since 1998 has been made with the help of the SuperKamiokande experiment in Japan (reviewed in Sidharth 2002a). This facility observed solar radiation, in particular for the very strange, maverick supposedly massless particles, neutrinos. It turns out that these particles now possess a miniscule mass, about a billionth that of an electron. The discovery explains one puzzle, what has been commonly called the solar neutrino problem. The point is that we seem to receive much less than the theoretically expected number of neutrinos from solar radiation. But the theoretical prediction was made on the basis of the assumption that neutrinos were massless. Even with the tiniest of masses, the problem disappears. However these observations challenge what has come to be known as the Standard Model of Particle Physics, which takes the masslessness of the neutrino for granted. Could these massive neutrinos be the elusive dark matter? The answer is no--the mass of this matter is still much too small to stop the expansion, which is very well in view of the latest ever expanding universe scenario.

Another iconoclastic dramatic observation regards the fine structure constant, which has been considered to be a sacrosanct constant of the universe. However, based on recent observations, the fine structure constant has been slowly decreasing over billions of years (Webb 2001, Webb 1999). Webb and co-workers have come to this conclusion based on the spectrum of light from the distant Quasars and comparing this with spectra in the vicinity. As the fine structure constant is made up of the electric charge of the electron, the speed of light, and the Planck constant, this would mean that one or some or even all of them are not the sacred constants they have been taken for, but are slowly changing with time. The implications are quite dramatic.

For instance this would mean that atoms and molecules in the past were not the same as their counterparts today; which means these changes will continue into the future, effecting not just the universe but life. If the values of these constants change, so would atoms and molecules and the narrow limits for life get narrower in time.

Therefore, with the aid of supplementary theories, such as "dark matter," "density fluctuations" and "dark energy" (which is believed to serve as a repulsive force that might be speeding up the expansion), the big bang model has been saved and the universe behaves according to theory; so long as we ignore that these are theories and not established facts, and that these theories and the patchwork of hypothesis which support them are not, at present, compatible, or mutually predictable.

The answers to these various problems may lie in quantum mechanics. As noted, Hoyle (1993) proposed that matter is being continually created. In fact, as also proposed by Sidharth (Sidharth 1997, 1998a,b; Sidharth 2005a) matter might in fact be continually created at random from a background Quantum Vacuum or dark energy. This model, coupled with a small cosmological constant, can account for an ever expanding accelerating universe, the radius of the universe, the number of particles in the universe, the mass and size of a typical elementary particle, the universal gravitational constant, the speed of light and so on, thus solving some of the problems pointed out by Dirac (1928, 1933, 1939) years ago, and which had been dismissed as freak coincidences.

In the present model, all these relations follow from the theory, rather than being accidental. Apart from the fact that this model provides an explanation for the puzzling time variation of the fine structure constant, it also gives a mechanism for reconciling the two great irreconcible theories of the twentieth century, namely Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Theory. The key to this is the fact that, in both these theories, space and time were taken to be continuous and smooth, whereas in this model this is no longer true, though these subtler effects can only be detected at very tiny scales or high energies (Sidharth 1997, 1998a,b; 2005a).

3. Different Routes to Multiple Universes

According to consensus, the universe was born over 13 billion years ago in a big bang. Yet, although theories abound, the edge, or horizon for where the first stars are believed to reside, has not yet been found. Presumably, this failure is due to the vast distances and the limitations in current technology and the relative power of the Hubble and other space telescopes. The theoretical horizon and the light from the most distant stars may be too far away or to dim to see.

Another possibility is there is no horizon; or, there is a horizon beyond the horizon, and the universe may extend into infinity. Or yet, another possibility is that our "known universe" is but an "island universe" and each island is separated by vast distances.

This implies that even if we were to detect the most distant stars in this universe, there may be yet another "island universe" at a distance as great as our universe is across. Thus, there may be trillions upon unknown trillions of "island universes" with galaxies, stars, planets, and humans just like those of Earth.

If these "island universes" are identical to our own, they could be considered "parallel universes." Yet another way of conceiving multiple universes is via dimensionality; that is, universes, which exist in parallel but in dimensions outside of those dimensions within which are own universe can be found.

4. In the Beginning

Why should there be more than one universe? Why should there be any universe? How did it all begin, or did it even have a beginning?

Most cosmologists, astrophysicists, astronomers, and theologians believe the universe had a beginning. Theologians tell us that god created the universe. The consensus in the scientific community is that it all began with a "Big Bang." What started or caused the "Big Bang" is unknown. The field of physics is at a complete loss and unable to provide any reasonable explanation, and as such, we can only say that if there was a Big Bang, the laws of physics did not yet apply and this is because these laws had not yet been created. Thus, the only answer is that the "Universe was self-creating" and as pointed out by Joseph (2009, 2010), this smacks of theology and the Judeo-Christian religion which uses similar terminology, i.e. "god the creator became god the creator at the moment of creation, and thus god is self-creating."

However, another way to put it (and thus to satisfy vehement Big Bang critics who instead embraces an infinite universe), it could be said there was no beginning but instead a quantum sea of potentiality whose properties are not yet known though we can make educated guesses.

Perhaps this quantum sea of potentiality has been in fluctuation for all eternity. It is from this potentiality that emerge all the electromagnetic waves and elemental particles which will comprise matter and thus the universe. Initially, therefore, this sea may have consisted of an infinite number of singularities and potentialities.

Again, we cannot say what happened at the moment of the big bang, because there were no observers and no laws of physics. These laws emerged after what is called "Planck Time" (approximately 10^-43 seconds after the Big Bang). It is only after "Planck Time" has elapsed and when the emerging universe reaches the size of the Planck scale, that physics became law and can thus be applied to what happened next.

According to some versions of String theory during the Planck era the Universe was little more than "quantum foam" which had 10 dimensions and then collapsed into 4 (within dimensions curled up inside dimensions), signaling the end of the Planck era. However, prior to the dimensional collapse, space time was being twisted and contorted and very small black holes, each no larger than a Planck length were being continuously created and annihilated. However, not all black holes were destroyed and some became the building blocks of matter.

Implicit in this scenario is the possibility that numerous bubbles emerged from the cosmic foam, and each bubble became a universe. These "bubbles" have been likened to bubbles gushing out of a bottle of an aerated drink that has just been opened (Geller 1989) with each bubble corresponding to a single universe.

However it must be mentioned that a more recent development, that of decoherence could make the many worlds interpretation redundant (Sidharth 2009). To put it simply, decoherence argues that in a sense the universe itself is an observer and every wave function is being continuously observed in that it is being bombarded with some form of an interaction.

5. Many Worlds: Multiverse

Everything is possible. If it has not happened, it will happen, or it has happened in another universe.

In 1957 Everett proposed that quantum potentiality and an infinite number of quantum possibilities results in "many worlds" and maybe an infinite number of possible worlds. Certainly some possibilities prevail in this reality or universe/world, whereas all other possibilities which have supposedly been snuffed out actually do take place but in other worlds. This has been called the "many worlds" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, and according to Everett this obviates the need for invoking the collapse of the wave function as dictated by the Copenhagen school. So in the simple act of, let us say an electron going from one point to another point, a centimeter away, there are millions, or maybe an infinite number of hidden acts that have taken place, each in its universe.

The many worlds interpretation has inspired a number of scientists, including the Oxford Physicist David Deutsch to propose the multiverse or parallel universes theory. In a sense this collapsed actually realized wave function or universe is one of a conglomeration of any number of other universes which in truth have not collapsed, according to this line of thinking (Deutsch 1997). There is yet another route to this conclusion. When a star collapses into a black hole, at the very center there is what is called a singularity. A singularity can be thought of as a junction or crossroads of infinitely many different roads. Only in our case it is the junction of infinitely many universes each legitimate in its own right, and moreover each with its own laws of nature.

At singularity, all laws of nature breakdown. Each of the black holes in the universe, conceals the singularity which, without any Quantum Mechanical argument itself throws up any number of possible universes (Rees 1997). As Rees (1997) puts it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were - in an infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes."

Of course, each of these multiple universes may have its own distinct physics, with different laws, and in consequence, life may be impossible in some of these other universes.

So let us say that there are this practically infinite number of universes each with different values of the physical constants. We can then invoke an anthropic argument (Sidharth 2009): In our universe the physical constants have the value they are observed to have (unlike in many of the other universes) because if any of these values had been even slightly different, our universe in the form in which it is, including life on the earth would just not be possible!

To quote Rees (1997), "If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than hydrogen would be stable and there would be no nuclear energy to power stars. But, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger than they actually are relative to electric forces, two protons could stick together so readily that ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve quite differently."

Some scientists have also come to a similar conclusion from yet another view point: that of Superstring theory. It is reckoned that there would be 10⁵⁰⁰ universes! (Conlon 2006). How does such a conclusion follow? The point is Quantum Superstring Theory or M-Theory, has that many number of different possible solutions; each describes a different universe. Quantum Superstring Theory throws before us a landscape of universes (Susskind 2005). It is noteworthy, however, that this theory doesn't come up with a sensible value for the cosmological constant, which is very small. In fact the value of the cosmological constant in this theory is several orders of magnitude higher than what can be amenable to stable universe formation, such that these universes would have almost immediately exploded into oblivion.

6. Infinity and The Micro-Macro Cosmos

In 1584, Giordano Bruno a Dominican priest, published his book "Dell Infinito, universo e mondi" ("Of Infinity, the Universe, and the World"). Bruno was a visionary whose conception of the universe was more advanced than Corpernicus or Galileo. Without the aid of a telescope Bruno determined that the Earth was not the center of the universe, stars were also suns, planets must orbit those stars, and that there must be an infinite number of stars and planets upon which lived sentient beings just like ourselves.

An infinite universe made up of "many worlds" is supported by quantum physics and string theory. However, whereas Bruno proposed worlds that continued forever and separated only by immense space, "many worlds" theorists see parallel worlds and multiple universes which are separated by branes and dimensions which may range in number from 7 to 11 to infinity (see Robles-Peréz, 2010; Vaas, 2010; Wang 2010). Therefore, what these views have in common is belief in "infinity." However, whereas Bruno rejected a creation event and saw the universe as eternal and infinite and one with god which was everywhere, most multiverse scenarios implicitly and explicitly accept and promote the idea that every universe has a Big Bang beginning (reviewed by Vaas, 2010).

Joseph (2009, 2010) rejects all cosmologies which require beginning and endings, and has explicitly rejected the "Big Bang" calling it "religion masquerading as science." Although accepting the multiverse scenarios of multiple dimensions, Joseph (2010) like Bruno, Hoyle and others, embraces a cosmology where the cosmos is infinite.

According to Joseph (2010), the infinite cosmos extends from the subatomic to the macro-atomic, and that from the point of view of an infinite cosmos, even the "macro-atomic" is a microcosm. Space is infinite, and if we were to repeatedly subdivide the empty spaces that exist between the smallest elementary particles, be they quarks, leptons, bosons, or hypothetical gravitons, it would be a journey into infinity; but not a one-way journey, as these infinite spaces are punctuated by infinitesimally small holes in spacetime, passageways which may pass between "dimensions" and through which gravity, energy, and mass are continually exchanged or recycled (Joseph, 2010). He proposes that supermassive black holes do not merely bend space-time, but puncture holes in space time, and that they interact with holes formed in space smaller than a Planck length, thereby recycling gravity, energy, elementary particles and possibly maintaining dimensional equilibrium between this space-time, and those dimensions comprising other worlds. Black holes, according to Joseph are the source of hydrogen in the universe.

What we call "subatomic" however, is relative to the observer (Joseph 2010; Sidharth 2006). So too is what is described as macro-atomic, i.e. planets, stars, galaxies, the known universe, which from the POV of an infinite cosmos, are molecular in size. And this relatively micro-macro-atomic universe is also peppered by holes, black holes. That is, just as there are holes in spacetime smaller than a Planck length, and supermassive black holes in the center of galaxies, there are also super-supermassive black holes with the compacted mass of entire galaxies and around which swirl and orbit regions of galactic space the size of the known universe. Therefore, just as the stars closest to a black hole have a greater velocity than those on the outer-rims, those portions of the known universe which are closest to these super-supermassive black holes also have a greater velocity thereby giving rise to the illusion of an accelerating universe.

Joseph (2010) then asks us to take a "god's eye view" of the infinite universe (while cautioning the reader to avoid hysteria because of the metaphorical use of the term "god"). Relative to a "god's eye view" what we call the macro-atomic world and the known universe, becomes a microcosm of an infinite number of infinitesimally small objects, e.g. galaxies, which grow smaller in size, i.e. suns, planets, molecules, atoms, quarks, leptons, bosons... What we see as a "galaxy," or a "universe" is itself infinitesimally tiny and thus "subatomic" and molecular from a "god's eye view."

Joseph (2010) proposes that an infinite number of flat universes, side by side, one on top of the other, extending in all directions, from a "god's eye view", are merely the constituent elements of even greater superstructures; just as atoms and molecules form tables and chairs. However, because of our relatively infinitesimal vantage point, and due to the limitations of the human mind and brain, these infinitely huge structures are impossible for us to see or to comprehend.

7. Multiply Connected Universes

The author's own theory of the universe of universes shares some of the above features (Sidharth 2006). Thus the universe can be thought to be a blown up version of an elementary particle which is spinning. A huge number of such "particle universes" would form the analogue of a super particle universe; the analogue of let us say, gas molecules in a cubic centimeter or the level one Multiverse. And so on, possibly with increasing dimensionality of space and time at each step (Sidharth 2006). It is a bit like colonies of colonies of colonies and so on.There are very delicate tests proposed which can provide a clue as to the nature of this supracosmic reality and these are described in a second paper (Sidharth 2010) published in this volume of the Journal of Cosmology.