Matryoshka-esque behaviour in the cosmos.

Space Ponder, or Dylan Hovis, is developing a hypothesis titled Matryoshka Fractal Hypothesis (MFH) as part of my B.Sc graduate in mathematics and cosmology. This article here features some great key features of my theory-in-development which involves fractal mathematics. This article was written by Meeks & extended by me, and they kindly gave permission to share this lovely article that resonates with my thinking. A link to their blog https://acflory.wordpress.com/


The interesting thing about these little matryoshka dolls is that they nest, one inside the other. If we had the technology, we could probably keep making them smaller right down to the Planck level. [Wiki : “the Planck length is in principle, … the shortest measurable length…”] Basically that’s incredibly small.

Fractals are the natural equivalent of babushkas.




“Mandelbrot derived the term “fractal” from the Latin verb frangere, meaning to break or fragment. Basically, a fractal is any pattern that reveals greater complexity as it is enlarged. Thus, fractals graphically portray the notion of “worlds within worlds” …” http://www.glyphs.com/art/fractals/what_is.html%5D.

So what do babushkas and fractal fern leaves have to do with the multiverse? I’m so glad you asked.

The thought that occurred to me while I was lugging those rocks around from one spot to another was… what if the multiverse is like an infinite series of babushkas?

As human beings we see the universe around us as the only universe, however, a bacterium must think it is living in the only universe as well!


Yes, yes, I know, bacteria don’t have brains [sic], but when you look at how they live their lives, the parallels between them and us are not so very far-fetched. To a bacterium, one single human body is the universe! They can’t ‘see’ us because we are simply too big.

But what happens if we humans raise our sights from the microscopic and look up, at the billions of stars that inhabit our universe? Is it possible we are just like those bacteria, and can’t see the forest for the trees?


When I think of the stars, all arranged into galaxies, each of which orbits some theoretical centre of the universe, I can’t help thinking of the sub-atomic particles – protons, neutrons and electrons – that makeup one atom. Those particles spin around the nucleus of the atom, much like the planets of a solar system or the stars in a galaxy, giving it form and substance.


Fractals anyone?

Here, in our universe, if you multiply that one atom by the billions, you might end up with a rock, or a human being. But what would you get if you multiplied all those stars and galaxies by the billions? Would you just end up with star soup? Or might you not end up with a bigger babushka doll?


If there is such a thing as the multiverse then this is how I see it, one universe inside the other, each providing the building blocks for something bigger, grander, and more unknowable. And if there is a god, then perhaps she is the biggest babushka of them all.


What a great article by Meeks.


I will now extend this beautifully written article.


Benoit Mandelbrot, the father of fractal mathematics, has said


"A cloud is made of billows upon billows upon billows that look like clouds. As you come closer to a cloud you don't get something smooth, but irregularities at a smaller scale."

If we look at, say, the Virgo Supercluster, we do not see the irregularities, like the individual galaxies and stars. Instead, we see something similar to a cloud. But, as we know, as we come closer, we will find those irregularities. And they don't stop at galaxies, right down to individual atoms and even further than that.

M13: The Great Globular Cluster in Hercules





We see the same thing in Globular Clusters. We know that this globular cluster isn't just what it looks like from afar, we know that it contains many individual parts, like its many suns, planets, and moons. We can see this Matryoshka doll behaviour everywhere in the cosmos or fractals.


Physicists at MIT and elsewhere have discovered fractal-like patterns in a quantum material — a material that exhibits strange electronic or magnetic behaviour, as a result of quantum, atomic-scale effects.


Where there are fractals, there's self-similarity. A self-similar object is exactly or approximately similar to a part of itself. Ferns are self-similar, it's a great example of self-similarity. Branches of a tree are self-similar. Galaxies are self-similar... at least from the outside...when we zoom in, self-similarity seems to go away.


Self-similarity is a bit of a misnomer. A self-similar object doesn't have to be made up of smaller copies of itself, meaning the structure you see when you zoom in doesn't have to repeat. The Mandelbrot set is a fractal but although there are parts of it that look a lot like the whole thing, they're not identical copies. The defining characteristic of a fractal is that it displays complex structures and patterns at arbitrarily small.

scales. Fractals don't even have to show patterns. There's no universally agreed definition of fractal but there are some characteristics that mathematicians agree on.


MFH

In my hypothesis, I argue that physicists do not talk about nothingness. For example, When physicists talk about nothingness, they often mention 'quantum fluctuations' but let's get real, that's not nothing at all, that's still something, albeit a very little amount of something but is still something! Unless there is some other definition they are relating to because last time I checked, nothing means "not anything; no single thing"

Due to the fractal nature of our cosmos, nothingness does not exist, something is always existing. This suggests that the universe didn't have a beginning nor will it have an ending.


More on this in the future. Keep pondering. :)






Recent Posts

See All