Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Theoretical modeling reveals resolution of infinite-universe paradoxes in modern cosmology, suggesting parallel universes are dimensional projections of a single finite structure.
Parallel-universe theories constitute an important theoretical ensemble in modern physics for explaining quantum measurement, cosmic inflation and space-time structure. Yet their four mainstream branches (infinite-universe repetition, quantum many-worlds, inflationary bubble universes and string-theoretic D-brane universes) all take “infinitely extendable space-time” or “infinitely proliferating branches” as an implicit premise, thereby generating a series of logically inconsistent paradoxes: Olbers’ paradox, gravitational divergence, non-conservation of energy, cognitive undecidability, and others. On the basis of the compact toroidal topology T⁶⁴ and the self-referential mind-field dynamics Ψ=F(Ψ) of Yuanxian Theory, this paper advances a wholly new interpretation: every traditionally conceived “parallel universe” is essentially a local manifestation mode of one and the same T⁶⁴ ontology under different projection dimensions, not an independent infinitely multiplicitous space-time entity. The “finite yet boundaryless” geometric structure of T⁶⁴, the finite iterative closure of the self-referential mind field, and the topologically locked effect that forces the total energy to be strictly zero dissolve at the root every dilemma generated by the infinite-universe hypothesis; all derived parameters agree with the Planck 2024 observational data within 1σ. --- 平行宇宙理论是现代物理学中解释量子测量、宇宙暴胀与时空结构的重要理论集合,但其四大主流分支(无限宇宙重复、量子多世界、暴胀泡泡宇宙、弦论D-膜宇宙)均以“时空无限延伸”或“分支无限增生”为隐含前提,导致奥伯斯佯谬、引力发散、能量不守恒、认知不可判定等一系列无法自洽的逻辑悖论。本文基于元宪理论的 T⁶⁴ 紧致环面拓扑与自指心场动力学 Ψ=F(Ψ),提出全新诠释:所有传统意义上的“平行宇宙”,本质上是同一个 T⁶⁴ 本体在不同投影维度下的局域显化模态,而非独立存在的无限多时空实体。T⁶⁴ 的“有限无界”几何结构、自指心场的有限迭代闭合、以及总能量严格为零的拓扑锁定效应,从根源上彻底消解了无限宇宙假设带来的全部困境,且全部导出参数与Planck 2024观测数据在 1σ 内吻合。
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zhenyuan Acharya (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: