Is there a real chance that there is a multiverse?

[Alex K]

Neither does the BBT's singularity.
Matter? You do know that matter didn't form till after expansion started, right?

Exactly. Very unfortunate that it is always visually presented erroneously. Has anyone here ever seen the singularity represented from the inside? Because there is no outside....

The atomic matter we are familiar with didn't start forming until a few nano-seconds after inflation. Atomic "matter" is 99.9999999999996% empty space...even the protons and neutrons in the nucleus. There is a very very tiny amount of real substance, flung into and extremely specific and reliable nested structure basically described as a spherical border made by a point, flying around in probability field around a larger spherical center....which is also a spherical field of motion made by smaller points.

The fundamental substance of matter is neither created nor destroyed. The "creation" (unfolding, lofting, "prismation") of a universe simply flings it into atomic form and motion in a stabilized vacated space.

---

Don't be so impatient, I'm sure we'll see his maths outlining the matter creation soon enough

The model predicts the spatial patterning of matter. Matter creation is unnecessary.
Space "creation" for the fundamental matter to take atomic form and move (time) is what is necessary.

While part of me wishes I could spit it out to you in a neat mathematical sentence, the majority of me is glad i can't....for a number of reasons. I'm 100% certain it can be though.

---

Prediction of order in the Standard Model of particle generation:

In this model, the prior to inflation state is a field of matter (quagma, quark gluon soup) in gravitational equilibrium taking up all available space forever. The minimum geometry for a 3d space in tension equilibrium is a tetrahedron. 4 points, 6 lines.

A single quantum (finite measurable wave-form, single motion of action) of this unified state is a single universe, and to create that space, an equal/opposite reaction of the original substance occurs. This is a radial reaction...the substance moves both inwards and outwards to vacate space between two curved structures: A central sphere of absolute mater that is "still" and an outer sphere shell of absolute matter now flung into motion (between other universes). The finite space of a universe is between these two curved features and they both exert gravitational influence.

Because the substance moves relatively both outwards (up) and inwards (down), the new geometry of the field between the two is an upward tetrahedron superimposed over a downwards pointed tetrahedron. A "star-tetrahedron", it has 8 points and 12 lines. 8 "modes of change" and 12 "modes of expression". This would be the fields macro and micro unit cell like a lattice, not a single star-tet.

So if this star-tetrahedron describes the micro/macro field of the universe, inter-penetrating and surrounding all universal phenomena, I look to subatomic particle organization to see if there is any 8 or 12 fold structural order.

There are 12 fundamental fermions and 8 gluons that bind them together into atomic form.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Pa...luons.html

Also found "The Eightfold Way"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eightfold_Way_(physics)
In physics, the Eightfold Way is a term coined by American physicist Murray Gell-Mann for a theory organizing subatomic baryons and mesons into octets (alluding to the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism). The theory was independently proposed by Israeli physicist Yuval Ne'eman and led to the subsequent development of the quark model.

As an interesting side note into the study of vibration, the naturally arising mathematic order in music gives us the 8 note octave with 12 semitones.
http://www.math.uwaterloo.ca/~mrubinst/tuning/12.html

Ok I can't sleep so I can just as well answer.
Dude that may all sound completely compelling to you, but you can't construct a serious cosmological or particle physics model with a bunch of words and a few numbers thrown in. It may sound superficially like that's what people did, but that's not how it works. When you say I have a new geometry, where are the differential geometry calculations outlining it, or the group theory? A geometry of what exactly anyway? The many other words you use - if they have a clear scientific or mathematical definition, it is only known to yourself. How does your "star tetrahedron" describe or govern the field? Which field? How does it describe the field and how does this field square with the known symmetries of the standard model? Are you proposing a new discrete symmetry? If so is it quantitatively compatible with known particle masses and interactions? That's 10 pages of calculations right there.

One can propose geometric symmetries (so called flavor symmetries) on the fermions, but then you have to specify the group representations of all known fields, and how they are broken by some dynamical mechanism to yield the observed masses and quark and lepton mixing parameters. That's 10 pages of calculations without which you don't have a model. The problem is that you can vaguely throw together an infinite number of schemes which are all wrong. Only when it quantitatively fits with known physics in all detail does one have anything.

For instance, Gell-Mann and Zweig and all the others working on this in the 60s and later didn't just say, look, the number 8 looks promising, let's make it 8. They said, ok if we formally introduce three quarks (and the 8 fold way only employs the lightest 3, u d s, not the rest because they are to heavy for the scheme to work), they will exhibit a SU(3)xSU(3)xU(1)xU(1) partially conserved symmetry structure, and from the mathematical representations of these symmetry groups and the symmetry breaking, they could predict the light mesons and baryons, and calculate some of their masses. One of the structures appearing there is the adjoint representation of SU3 which happens to have 8 elements, but there are others with 6 or 10 etc... It's not a fundamental model though, just an old incomplete albeit very useful effective description of the bound states of the lightest three quarks. What I write here alone though is meaningless without the hundreds of pages of calculations establishing quantitatively what it all means.

To have a serious model for cosmic inflation, you need to specify the fields driving it and their dynamics and the analytic form of its potential from which you can derive parameters such as the spectral parameter and scalar to tensor, and then if you wish to address matter creation, a reheating process and numerical studies how baryon asymmetry is generated. This is a loooot of work.