Design a site like this with
Get started

The Structure of The Universe

The one theory that can be regarded as our best chance to completely understand and explain the known and unknown Universe is, The String Theory.

String theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other.

These strings extend and vibrate at their own frequencies across dimensions. And each vibration is a different particle.

Theoretically, one might consider the entire Universe as a web of these cosmic strings, looped and intertwined with each other across 11 dimensions of Space-Time.

Theoretically, what we can perceive as just particles, are actually these strings twisted and spread in complicated ways.

And based on the same theory, we can hypothesize an existence of Multiverse, populated by at least 10^500 different Universes.

Given the complex structure of Universe, comprised of trillions of quadrillions of these strings, if one were to look at it from a quantum viewpoint, these strings could very well be the roads of the Multiverse.

We live in a Universe built-up of objects with different number of dimensions. Just like we are a 3 dimensional species, ants, a 2 dimensional; in the same way, there has to be something or someone who can perceive Space-Time beynd 3 dimensions and also, someone who or what exists in 1 dimension.

We don’t know yet about creatures who exists beyond 3 dimensions, but we have tried to posit that particles are one-dimensional, string-like entities whose vibrations determine the particles’ properties, such as their mass and charge.

But while being one dimensional, particles also possess the ability to exist across time and dimensions.

Particles are an object that exists throughout the Universe, and most certainly, the Multiverse.

But there is always a possibility that the particles in one Universe might exist in that Universe alone, crediting to the frequency of vibration of that particular Universe.

But if we consider the origin of particles to be somewhere in a place where all dimensions merge into one and create one dense quantum universe – A Quantum Singularity, the birth of everything else in the Multiverse, that may not end up being entirely true.

On a quantum level, Universe does make a lot of sense.

Every string, connecting all the dimensions of space and time and the sub-space together.

To us, it may seem odd to learn about Dark Matter and Dark Energy – something that exists but cannot be perceived by us, but on a quantum level, all of it just… Exists!

P.S. On Quantum Levels, Universe is a lot more than what some of us can understand right now.

55 responses to “The Structure of The Universe”

  1. Beautiful post Doctor. In fact, it’s good medicine, if you’ll pardon the multidimensional puns. I like to imagine my soul stepping into a portal of light, and collecting any needed energies from the Universe that can help me along the way. During this meditation, I also like to call on any Archetypal energies, like Archangel Michael, if you will, coming in with a sword to sever any unwanted, Quantum “string” attachments that need to be cleared from my souls – perhaps something that might not be serving me anymore. This helps me become the change that I want to see in the world, like Ghandi said. This visualization/meditation also helps some students/coworkers that I work with, if they are open to it.Thank you for your inspiration. Really appreciate your wisdom, Ari

    Liked by 4 people

      • Okay.. You probably can answer then. Can you tell me when any new celestial entity forms (which definitely takes millions of years) where do those strings vanish (which are invisible of course)?? In case of stars, do those strings burn or what?? What can be the possible size of those strings?? And if those strings are of the tiniest size that human beings cannot measure, aren’t those strings too weak to even run the universe in the particular pattern??
        Universe move in a fixed fashion as well as is expanding. Isn’t it because of the force of matter already present in the floating state as well as the waves those atoms and molecules produce (matter being of different sizes)??


      • Yes, I have. And I really don’t think that any such thing like invisible strings are there which are moving matter. It’s actually the energy of matter (matter that is abundant but at some places may be scarce considering the base of the universe having no matter or energy; the base being considered as the background of platform or nothingness) that is operating the universe the way it is. Different energetic level spaces which are due to respective density of matter. Here, matter can be of completely unknown elements which may have unknown kinds of energy.
        Now, can you answer my first question??

        Liked by 1 person

      • Nonetheless, first things first. Billions of stars are formed each year. Trillions of celestial objects.
        There are no actual ‘Strings or Threads’ holding the Universe together that would start breaking apart or burn to dust by heat or stress.
        And as for the size, in Physics, there is a thing called Quantum Mechanics.
        A Blackhole which is mere 58 miles across tends to have the Gravitational Pull of almost 16 Suns.
        Strings, the particles, extend across Multiverse crating a cosmic web but they don’t hold the Universe together on their own. But they do provide every celestial object the energy and mass that eventually holds the structure of the Universe the way it is.

        Liked by 2 people

      • And I didn’t ask about anything as real strings to be proved. What I am questioning in this theory is that Can There Anything Be String-like That Is Running Matter?? I think matter and its energy is creating such strings (at quantum level).


      • The starting point for string theory is the idea that the point-like particles of quantum field theory can also be modeled as one-dimensional objects called strings. The interaction of strings is most straightforwardly defined by generalizing the perturbation theory used in ordinary quantum field theory. At the level of Feynman diagrams, this means replacing the one-dimensional diagram representing the path of a point particle by a two-dimensional (2D) surface representing the motion of a string. Unlike in quantum field theory, string theory does not have a full non-perturbative definition, so many of the theoretical questions that physicists would like to answer remain out of reach.
        In theories of particle physics based on string theory, the characteristic length scale of strings is assumed to be on the order of the Planck length, or 10−35 meters, the scale at which the effects of quantum gravity are believed to become significant. On much larger length scales, such as the scales visible in physics laboratories, such objects would be indistinguishable from zero-dimensional point particles, and the vibrational state of the string would determine the type of particle. One of the vibrational states of a string corresponds to the graviton, a quantum mechanical particle that carries the gravitational force.


      • I’ll come back to this after knowing everythinh about what has already been proved. Sorry to say but these theories, not only string theory don’t make much sense. You have yourself written here that even the length is assumed. And the possibility of them being proved is still 50% only. And if the very basis of this string theory is assumed, then what anyone is supposed to say further. Even the interaction of the strings is defined by generalising by another theory?? Seriously, is it science?? 🤔


      • A collection of assumptions ending up in the most acceptable arguments backed by a cluster of some more assumptions, resulting in a conclusion named a theory a last. Not buying it, seriously.

        Liked by 1 person

      • No one asked you to. I don’t think you hold any particular position or would, at any time in future, play any role in the review of this or any other theory for that matter. Nor do I believe you would hold any position on the Nobel Prize Committee. So, don’t buy this or anything else. It’s all the same.


      • Ah! I wonder if according to you, a person who has been studying and researching the String Theory and Navier-Stokes Equation would ever qualify as being a scientist given that none of the theories make sense to you.


      • I repeat it may or may not come under the category of a scientist.
        A scientist (researcher) can be considered so with or without studying for a Ph.D programme.
        A Ph.D holder may or may not be a scientist. Actually, a Ph.D holder qualifies for being a scientist when he/she has opted for post-phd research.
        And I have no idea which category do you fall in.


      • If you think String Theory and Navier-Stokes research doesn’t make one a scientist, you may as well say Michio Kaku and Stephen Hawking weren’t scientists either.


      • You can read about the categories yourself, rather than trying to prove a point to me. I actually do not have anything to do with it. My whole point was that you need to keep your ego in check n if you are considering yourself a scientist then you need to question theories more than backing them up with more assumptions.
        All theories n no facts is definitely not science, not even considering what you are, here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • I have understood a lot about it and my doubts are also valid. But you not questioning it much is sounding not like the mind of scientist. Anyways, be happy with your title.


      • It’s preposterous of you to think I never questioned it. How do you think I intend to prove it? Can’t do without questioning.
        String theory isn’t the primary theory.
        It started almost 80 years ago with S-Matrix theory. Then went to 26 dimensions, then came Super-Symmetry, now we are working on M-Theory.
        Science doesn’t work blindly. We prove and then we question our own proofs. That is science.
        And you might be the only person on the planet who has understood “A lot” about String Theory in such a short time. Takes Months and even years for people like us with extremely diminished IQs of that in the range of 155-180


      • Wow.. Thank you !! This is what I was talking about. I have read about M-theory, (not in too much details though). And actually it’s preposterous on your part because if you have questioned it that much, you wouldn’t be arguing about it without all the clear proofs. And regarding science, this is exactly what I said what it is.


      • In String Theory, there are no “Strings” involved. It is simply the fact that the particles, which are otherwise considered to be zero-dimensional points are regarded as one-dimensional string like objects, with each different vibration being a different particle while all the strings are visually identical.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: