The article proposes a dynamical explanation of the fine-tuning problem of fundamental constants within the framework of the Infinite-Dimensional Multiverse Model (IDM). Fundamental constants — the speed of light, the fine-structure constant, the proton mass, the cosmological constant — have values surprisingly suitable for the existence of complex matter, stars, galaxies, and life. If any of them differed by a fraction of a percent, atoms would not form, stars would not ignite, and life would become impossible. Existing approaches (chance, the anthropic principle, the multiverse, the string landscape) do not provide a satisfactory explanation. The anthropic principle states a fact but does not explain the cause. The multiverse offers a statistical explanation but does not explain why the constants have these particular values, nor does it yield testable predictions. The IDM asserts that the constants of our Universe are evolutionary attractors in the multiverse's constant space. An attractor is a stable state of a dynamical system toward which it evolves regardless of initial conditions. The constants are not random and are not the result of a "lottery": they are drawn to the attractor as a result of an infinite number of weak interactions with neighboring universes. A mathematical sketch is given: F_res(x) = Σ F_m(x), where F_m is the "force" from the m-th neighboring universe. The attractor is the point where the resultant force is zero and the equilibrium is stable. Within the attractor width, small variations of constants are possible (δx/x ~ 10⁻⁶ – 10⁻⁵). Testable predictions with clear falsification thresholds are formulated: spacetime variations of constants (dipole component), dynamical cosmological constant Λ(t), CMB anomalies at large angles, correlations between constants (PCA). If none of the predictions are confirmed upon reaching the specified thresholds, the model must be rejected or substantially modified.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Alexander Yourievitch Kotelnikov (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: