Hypothesis of the Hidden Multiverse Explains Dark Matter and Dark Energy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are currently a large number of Multiverse hypotheses, which are, however, non-verifiable, i.e. they can be neither confirmed nor refuted experimentally even in the distant future. In contrast, the hypothesis of the hidden Multiverse considered in the article is verifiable and therefore has a right to be called a theory. The theory uses the principle of physical reality of imaginary numbers discovered 500 years ago, including complex and hypercomplex numbers, as fundamental and proved by the author theoretically and experimentally. This principle has allowed revealing a number of serious mistakes in the special theory of relativity. An adjusted version of the special theory of relativity has been proposed and the theory of the hidden Multiverse has been developed on its basis. The Multiverse has been referred to as hidden, because parallel universes it contains are mutually invisible. The nature of their invisibility is explained in the article. It is shown that dark matter and dark energy are other universes of the hidden Multiverse apart from ours. Analysis of data from WMAP and Planck spacecrafts has shown that the hidden Multiverse has quaternion structure comprising four pairs of universes and antiverses (i.e., four pairs of matter and antimatter).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it