Scientific research about UFOs and a parallel universe
(ORDO NEWS) — The study is titled “Possible Confirming Observations of the Existence of a Parallel Universe.” The proposed configuration of two spinning, parallel three-dimensional universes appears to explain both the diversity of astrophysical observations and (possibly) the observed features of UFOs.
Many completely different types of astrophysical observations have shown that there is a preferred direction in our universe. In particular, based on observations over a wide range of frequencies, an alignment of different preferred directions in different datasets has been found.
Moreover, the observed cosmic microwave background (CMB) quadrupole, CMB octopole, radio and optical polarizations from distant sources also point to the same preferred direction.
Although this hints at a gravitational attraction “from outside”, the Planck satellite observations showed that the volumetric flow rate is relatively small: much less than first thought.
In this paper, we propose a configuration in which two three-dimensional universes (one of which is ours) are embedded in four-dimensional space and rotate around their barycenter in such a way that the centrifugal force almost (but not exactly) cancels out their mutual gravitational attraction.
This explains not only the existence of a preferred direction for each of the three-dimensional universes (the direction to another universe), but also the fact that the volume flow rate observed in our universe is relatively small.
We note that this configuration may also explain the puzzling features of unidentified airborne phenomena (UAPs), formerly known as unidentified flying objects (UFOs), recorded by various detection systems – features presented in the latest official report by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Thus, the proposed configuration of two rotating, parallel three-dimensional universes seems to explain both the variety of astrophysical observations and (perhaps) the observed features of UFOs.
1- Introduction
The hypothesis of the existence of a parallel universe or universes (in the latter case called multiverses) has supporters and opponents among astrophysicists.
The main argument against this hypothesis was the lack of observational evidence. In response, proponents of the hypothesis have suggested (at various times) that the following two kinds of observations could be such evidence.
One theory is based on an early observation of “bulk flow” (ie a flow of clusters of galaxies moving in the same direction) where the bulk flow velocity was >4000 km/s. These observations could be interpreted as proof of the existence of a parallel universe.
However, later, more accurate observations (from the Planck satellite) showed that the average velocity of the clusters is “zero-compatible”, being at the level of 120-160 km/s.
The authors of the paper wrote that this “represents an unprecedented and valuable confirmation of the prediction of the standard cosmological scenario”, so the proposed proof of the existence of a parallel universe should be discarded.
Another theory is that the observed Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) cold spot (located in the constellation Eridani) is the remnant of a collision between our Universe and another “bubble” Universe during the early inflationary phase, for example, see the review and references therein.
According to another hypothesis, the cold spot could be the imprint of another universe outside of our own, caused by quantum entanglement between universes before they were separated by cosmic inflation.
However, a closer analysis of data from the WMAP probe (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and from the Plank satellite, whose resolution is three times higher than that of WMAP, did not reveal any statistically significant evidence of such a collision of bubble universes.
In the present paper, we show that existing observations, astrophysical or otherwise, may actually constitute evidence for the existence of a parallel universe.
2- Possible observational evidence
Many very different kinds of astrophysical observations have shown that there is a preferred direction in our universe (called the “axis of evil”:
“A very curious feature of SI [Statistical Isotropy] violations is the alignment of different preferred directions across different datasets. Several observations over a wide range of frequencies indicate a preferred direction pointing roughly towards the Virgo supercluster, which is close to the direction of the observed CMB dipole.
Except In addition, the observed MDB quadrupole, MDB octopole, radio and optical polarizations from distant sources also point to a preferred direction pointing roughly towards Virgo…
Statistical isotropy implies that they are independent of each other, as well as of other multipoles such as like a dipole. However, the preferred axis of both of these multipoles points approximately in the direction of the CMB dipole….That’s pretty amazing!”
It should be noted that the CMB dipole can be interpreted as a special motion of the Earth in the direction of the CMB. However, the MDB quadrupole and octupole cannot be interpreted in this way.
Thus, the existence of a preferred direction (or axis) in our universe is beyond doubt. This hints at a gravitational attraction “from outside”.
However, the observational data from the Planck satellite showed that the velocity of the volumetric flow is no more than 160 km/s, i.e. much less than the previous observation >4000 km/s, and thus the actual gravitational pull from the outside is much less than first thought.
There is a possible way to reconcile the undeniable existence of the preferred direction of our universe with the relative smallness of the gravitational pull from the outside. Let’s consider two 3D universes (one of which is ours) embedded in 4D space.
(Both universes rotate around their barycenter in such a way that the centrifugal force almost (though not quite) cancels out their mutual gravitational attraction. In this configuration, within each of the three-dimensional universes there will be a preferred direction: the direction towards the other universe.
Also, in this configuration the volumetric flow rate (in each of the universes) would be relatively small, since the centrifugal force nearly cancels out the gravitational force.
This scenario appears to offer a possible explanation for the above astrophysical observations; so it seems self-sufficient. However, it should be noted that there may be non-astrophysical evidence for this scenario, as presented below.
This paper examines the following three puzzling features of UAEs, formerly known as Unidentified Flying Objects (UFOs), from the latest official report by the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where out of 144 relatively recent UAE sightings by the U.S. military recorded by various detection systems, 143 remained unexplained.
First, some submarines have shown acceleration (measured by detection systems) of about 700 g. A person, even an astronaut, can withstand an acceleration of no more than 10 g.
Secondly, PLA can both suddenly appear and suddenly disappear (almost instantly), which is impossible for man-made objects. Third, these observed UAPs were able to move back and forth in air and water without significant change in dynamics, which is also impossible for man-made objects.
For a more visual representation of the main idea of this author, the following was discussed for the first time in one of his works.
If an experimenter shines a laser beam on a remote surface (for example, on the surface of the Moon) and rotates the laser with a certain angular velocity, then the bright spot can move along the remote surface at a very high linear speed, even exceeding the speed of light.
(In this case, no physical law will be violated, since it is information that cannot be transmitted faster than the speed of light, and a bright spot cannot transmit any information from one place on the surface to another).
If the experimenter were to abruptly change the direction of the laser, the bright spot on the distant surface would show an extremely sharp turn.
If a hypothetical 2D observer on this surface calculates the “acceleration” of this “object” during an extremely sharp turn, he will get a very large value of this “acceleration”, a number far beyond the technological capabilities of the observing community.
If an experimenter (on Earth) first shines a laser beam parallel to a distant surface and then abruptly changes the direction of the beam to hit the surface, then a two-dimensional observer on that surface will register the sudden appearance of a bright spot.
If later the experimenter were to abruptly change the direction of the laser beam so that it became parallel to the surface, that observer would register the sudden disappearance of the bright spot. In both cases, the observer would qualify it as something that is beyond the technological capabilities of the observer community.
Further, imagine that this surface has dry areas (“air”) and wet areas (“water”). A bright spot can move through “air”, then through “water”, then through “air” again, without changing its speed (the speed is controlled by the movement of the laser in the third dimension). A 2D observer on this surface would again qualify this as being beyond the technological capabilities of the observer community.
At this stage, the following was written in the work.
“Now let’s add an extra spatial dimension to both the ‘surface’ and the space from which the light shines. Now the ‘surface’ becomes our 3D world, where the light comes from the 4th spatial dimension. In our world we see a 3D ‘bright spot'” This “bright spot” is a projection of light emanating from the four-dimensional world onto a three-dimensional “screen”, the “screen” of which is our three-dimensional world.”
Obviously, in this situation, all three of the above puzzling features of the 3D “bright spot” would be noticed and recorded by detection systems with characteristics that are far beyond our technological capabilities, and we would consider such 3D “bright spots” ADF.
In other words, there is an explanation for all three puzzling features of the observed UAPs; they are three-dimensional projections of light entering our world from the fourth dimension. The paper wrote the following:
“By changing the intensity distribution in the cross section of the light beam in the source (for example, using various filters), it is possible to create any shape and kind of three-dimensional projection that we observe, including the shape of “flying saucers” and so on. By varying the color filters or their combinations, it would be possible to make a three-dimensional projection of any color or their combinations.”
Further in the work it was explained that detailed information about the properties of electromagnetic radiation in four spatial dimensions was presented in the work.
According to the article, the only difference between an electromagnetic wave in four spatial dimensions and an electromagnetic wave in three spatial dimensions is that in the four-dimensional case it is intertwined with a weak oscillating gravitational field (the gravitational field oscillates in the direction of electromagnetic wave propagation).
As for the electric and magnetic components of the four-dimensional electromagnetic wave, they are the same as in the three-dimensional world.
The paper emphasized that no new physical laws had been introduced so far: everything was based on standard physics. The following was written in the paper:
“Further, it may seem that since the light comes from the world of four spatial dimensions, then the light source must be controlled by four-dimensional sentient beings (this would be science fiction). However, this is not necessarily the case…
The light source can be located and controlled in a parallel three-dimensional world by a relatively advanced civilization that has developed the ability to manipulate electromagnetic radiation in the manner described above. By projecting light into our three-dimensional world and detecting the reflected light, they control our technological capabilities.”
Then, in the paper, the above scenario was compared with the only existing alternative explanation for the 143 unexplained UAPs from the above official report – that the unexplained UAPs could be drones. The mysterious features of these drones point to their extraterrestrial origin. There are three drawbacks to the drone hypothesis compared to the scenario where UAPs are 3D projections.
First, since our astrophysicists have not yet discovered a single extraterrestrial civilization located within hundreds of light years from Earth, an advanced civilization flying extraterrestrial drones would receive information many hundreds of years or even thousands of years into the future.
In contrast, in a scenario where the UAPs are 3D projections, the information carried by the reflected light could only take a few years or less to reach the light source, since the parallel 3D world may be only a few light years (or less) from our 3D world in 4D. space.
Obviously, it would be much more reasonable to monitor our technological capabilities with a delay of only a few years, as opposed to monitoring with a delay of hundreds or thousands of years.
Secondly, in a scenario where the observed UAPs are extraterrestrial drones, the extraterrestrial civilization must be extremely advanced, otherwise it would not be able to create spacecraft that can withstand acceleration of 700 g and can alternate movement in the air and under water without a significant change in speed.
In contrast, in a scenario where the UAP is a three-dimensional projection, it would be enough for another civilization to be only slightly advanced – only capable of manipulating electromagnetic radiation in the manner described above.
Third, but most important, the ET drone scenario cannot explain the sudden, almost instantaneous appearance of the UAP and the subsequent sudden, almost instantaneous disappearance of the UAP. In contrast, in a scenario where the UAPs are 3D projections, this puzzling feature is easily explained.
Thus, the configuration of two parallel 3D universes embedded in 4D space (where they orbit their barycenter) explains not only all the relevant astrophysical observations, but also the possibly mind-blowing features of the observed UAP (which have no coherent alternative explanation).
3- Conclusions
We started with the indisputable fact that, judging by various astrophysical observations of a very different nature, our universe has a preferred direction in space.
We proposed a configuration in which two three-dimensional universes (one of which is ours) are embedded in four-dimensional space and rotate around their barycenter in such a way that the centrifugal force almost (but not exactly) balances their mutual gravitational attraction.
This explains not only the existence of a preferred direction within each of the three-dimensional universes (the direction to another universe), but also the fact that the volume flow rate observed in our universe is relatively small.
We pointed out that this configuration could also explain the puzzling UAP features recorded by various detection systems – features presented in the latest official report by the US Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Thus, the proposed configuration of two spinning, parallel, three-dimensional universes seems to explain both the variety of astrophysical observations and (perhaps) the observed features of the UAP.
We mentioned that one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics suggests the existence of parallel universes. This is the many worlds interpretation proposed as early as 1957.
It should be emphasized the totality of astrophysical observations that prove the existence of a preferred direction in our Universe, as well as astrophysical observations in which a weak but non-zero volumetric flow was measured (i.e., gravitational attraction “from outside”).
This alone seems to be sufficient for the proposed configuration of two spinning, parallel, three-dimensional universes to be viable. We hope that our work stimulates further discussion of these issues.
—
Online:
Contact us: [email protected]
Our Standards, Terms of Use: Standard Terms And Conditions.
