Multistructure of the Universe

Abstract

This page presents a modernised formulation of the Exo-Spatial Cyclic Universe Hypothesis. The hypothesis proposes that our observable Universe, or Space-Time Continuum (STC), is not a closed self-originating system, but a temporary structure formed by the interaction of two external primordial structures. These structures are interpreted as higher-order entities located outside the geometry of our STC.

Within this framework, the expansion of the Universe, the emergence of time, the cosmic microwave background, the so-called “Axis of Evil” anomaly, and the possible final collapse of the Universe are interpreted as manifestations of one geometric process: the birth, evolution and dissolution of a temporary cosmological bubble.

Space-Time Continuum Cyclic Universe CMB Axis of Evil Dark Matter Dark Energy

Scientific status: this text presents a theoretical and philosophical hypothesis. It should not be read as established physical consensus. Its value depends on whether it can generate falsifiable predictions and be compared with observational data.

1. Main Conceptual Diagram

The diagram below preserves the original conceptual elements of the model while presenting them in a cleaner, more professional visual form. It shows two overlapping external structures, BM A and BM B, the region of interaction interpreted as our Universe, pressure vectors Pa and Pb, mutual diffusion (MD), expansion vectors, an unknown entity, and the possible “Axis of Evil”.

Professional diagram of the multistructure of the Universe with BM A, BM B, Universe, pressure vectors, mutual diffusion, Axis of Evil and unknown entity. — Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of the Multistructure of the Universe hypothesis. BM A and BM B denote two external primordial structures. Their interaction region is interpreted as the observable Universe or Space-Time Continuum.

2. Core Hypothesis

The central claim of the model is that the force which initiated and continues to influence the development of our Universe is located outside our Space-Time Continuum. This force may be the manifestation of unknown structures or systems that generated the STC.

BM A

BM A is interpreted as a primordial structure associated with a type-A component of dark matter and dark energy. It produces its own pressure vector, Pa, and participates in the formation of the STC bubble.

BM B

BM B is interpreted as a second primordial structure associated with a type-B component of dark matter and dark energy. It produces its own pressure vector, Pb, and interacts with BM A in the overlapping region.

2.1. The Universe as a temporary bubble

In this model, our Universe is a temporary and causally isolated bubble created by the interaction of BM A and BM B. It is not assumed to be eternal. It is born, evolves, and eventually disappears as the interaction between the two external structures changes.

$$\text{Structure A} + \text{Structure B} \longrightarrow \text{STC Bubble / Universe} \longrightarrow \text{Decay into initial structures}$$

2.2. Time as a rate of structural change

The hypothesis interprets time not as an absolute container, but as an emergent measure of structural change inside the STC. In this interpretation, time is the observable rate at which the internal geometry of the STC changes under the influence of external pressure.

3. Expansion, Dark Energy and External Pressure

In standard cosmology, accelerated expansion is often modelled through the cosmological constant $\Lambda$ or through more general dark-energy models. In this hypothesis, the same phenomenon is interpreted as the internal manifestation of pressure exerted by the two external primordial structures.

$$G_{\mu\nu} + \Lambda g_{\mu\nu} = \frac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_{\mu\nu}$$

The hypothesis therefore suggests that what is described internally as $\Lambda$ may correspond to an external influence on the geometry of the STC. This is a conceptual reinterpretation, not a replacement for the standard mathematical formulation of general relativity.

Standard cosmological term	Interpretation in this hypothesis
Dark energy / cosmological constant	Observable effect of external pressure on the STC bubble.
Expansion of space	Growth or deformation of the STC under the influence of BM A and BM B.
Cosmic anisotropy	Possible trace of asymmetric interaction between the primordial structures.

4. CMB and the “Axis of Evil”

The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is usually understood as relic radiation from the early hot Universe. In this model, the CMB is additionally interpreted as a “seismic echo” of the original formation event of the STC bubble.

4.1. CMB as a boundary echo

If one looks far enough back in time, one approaches the earliest observable state of the Universe. In this hypothesis, the CMB may be interpreted as the frozen trace of oscillations caused by the initial interaction of BM A and BM B.

4.2. Axis of Evil as a pressure vector

The so-called “Axis of Evil” is an observed large-scale alignment anomaly in the CMB. In this hypothesis, it is interpreted as a possible trace of a preferred direction imposed by the external structures during the formation of the STC.

Interpretive proposal

If the STC was formed by two external structures pressing asymmetrically on one another, the resulting Universe would not be perfectly isotropic. The “Axis of Evil” may then be interpreted as a residual line or vector of the original pressure field.

5. Multiverse Landscape and Causal Isolation

The hypothesis allows for the possible existence of other temporary bubbles formed by other interactions between primordial structures. These worlds may exist in parallel but remain causally inaccessible.

Simple short-lived worlds

Low-energy interactions may form simple bubbles that collapse quickly or never develop stable matter, stars or complex structures.

Complex long-lived worlds

Interactions with an optimal energy balance may form long-lived universes with stable constants, matter, stars, planets and potentially life.

This naturally leads to an anthropic interpretation: we observe a complex Universe because only such a Universe allows observers to appear and ask questions about its origin.

6. Micro–Macro Analogy: The “Cosmic Neutron”

A central analogy of the model compares the life cycle of the Universe to the formation and decay of a temporary particle state. In the micro-world, a neutron may be described as a composite, unstable state. In the proposed macro-analogy, the Universe itself is treated as an unstable intermediate state formed by two more fundamental external structures.

$$p^+ + e^- \longrightarrow n^0$$

$$\text{BM A} + \text{BM B} \longrightarrow \text{Universe} \longrightarrow \text{BM A} + \text{BM B}$$

This analogy is not intended as a literal equivalence between nuclear physics and cosmology. It is used as a structural metaphor: two components form a temporary state which later decays back into its originating structures.

Proton and electron as bubble-like perturbations of the Space-Time Continuum. — Figure 2. Earlier conceptual illustration of proton and electron as bubble-like perturbations of the Space-Time Continuum. This image is preserved from the previous page structure.

7. Life Cycle of the STC Bubble

The hypothesis describes a finite cosmological episode rather than an eternal universe. The following sequence summarises the proposed life cycle.

Interaction

Two external primordial structures approach or collide. Their pressure fields begin to overlap.

Formation

A temporary STC bubble appears in the interaction zone. Internally, this is experienced as the origin of the Universe.

Expansion

The STC expands. Matter, radiation, galaxies and complex structures emerge within the bubble.

Anisotropic collapse

The collapse is expected to begin along the preferred pressure axis, rather than symmetrically in all directions.

Final black-hole state

The entire STC eventually collapses into one ultra-massive black-hole-like state.

Phase transition

The STC dissolves and decays back into two primordial structures. No permanent internal trace is preserved.

Creation of a Space-Time Continuum. — Figure 3. Earlier conceptual illustration of the creation of a Space-Time Continuum. This image is preserved from the previous page structure.

8. Preserved Mathematical Relations

The following formulas are preserved from the previous theoretical materials and integrated into the modernised page. They belong to the broader STC model and related reflections.

8.1. Spherical flux and inverse-square behaviour

$$A = 4\pi r^2$$

8.2. Local STC pressure hypothesis

$$P = k_e\frac{e^2}{L^4}$$

System	Proton radius	Calculated pressure
Hydrogen atom	$8.775 \times 10^{-16}$ m	$3.882 \times 10^{32}$ Pa
Muonic hydrogen	$8.4 \times 10^{-16}$ m	$4.632 \times 10^{32}$ Pa

8.3. Elementary charge relations from the STC model

$$e = 2\alpha\frac{L_s}{L_e} \approx 1.607 \times 10^{-19}$$

$$e = \frac{2\alpha L_e}{\pi^2 L_o} \approx 1.601 \times 10^{-19}$$

8.4. Characteristic STC scales

Symbol	Description	Value
$L_s$	Stoney scale	$1.1927 \times 10^{-33}$ m
$L_e$	Electron-related scale	$1.083097 \times 10^{-16}$ m
$L_o$	Reference length	1 m

9. Possible Observational Implications

For the hypothesis to move from philosophical speculation toward scientific modelling, it should be connected with potential observational implications.

Preferred-axis signatures: the model predicts that large-scale anisotropies should not be entirely random but may align with a pressure-induced direction.
CMB structure: certain low-multipole anomalies in the CMB could be interpreted as residual traces of the initial formation of the STC bubble.
Late-time collapse: if expansion eventually reverses, collapse may proceed anisotropically, beginning along the same large-scale axis.
Variable effective pressure: changes in effective dark-energy behaviour could be interpreted as changes in external pressure conditions.

10. Limitations and Scientific Caution

Several limitations must be clearly stated.

The model is conceptual and does not yet provide a complete field-theoretical formulation.
The nature of BM A and BM B remains undefined.
External structures outside our STC are not directly observable by standard methods.
The interpretation of the “Axis of Evil” remains speculative.
The analogy with neutron formation and decay is structural, not literal.
The final black-hole collapse scenario requires much more mathematical development.

A hypothesis involving structures outside the observable STC becomes scientific only if it produces observable consequences inside our Universe. The most promising path is therefore to formulate clear predictions concerning CMB anisotropies, large-scale structure, dark-energy behaviour and possible deviations from isotropy.

11. Conclusion

The Exo-Spatial Cyclic Universe Hypothesis presents the Universe as a temporary product of interaction between two external primordial structures. Within this view, the observable STC is a finite cosmological episode: it is born from pressure, expands as a structured bubble, carries internal time as a measure of structural change, and may ultimately collapse into a final black-hole-like state before dissolving back into its originating structures.

The model is severe in its philosophical implications: humanity and the observable cosmos are not treated as permanent features of reality, but as a temporary and beautiful flash within a larger, unknown geometry. Its future value will depend on whether this conceptual architecture can be translated into testable mathematics.