Cosmic Mirror Theory

Cosmic Mirror Theory

Source: Why some physicists really think there’s a ‘mirror universe’ hiding in space-time

Why does the Universe look like a Gemstone? A Jewel? An Opal maybe?

Why does the Universe look like an egg? Brahmanda?

Concept of Mirror is invoked in four ways in Cosmology

  • Shape of the Universe – Multi-connected manifolds – Dodecahedron topology – Reflecting Surfaces – Hall of Mirrors – Cosmic Crystals
  • Mirror Universe – a Parallel universe- Universe having a mirror twin – before the Big Bang – Symmetrical Opposite
  • Black Holes – Black Holes have mirror opposite in White Holes
  • Universe as a Hologram

Key Terms

  • Cosmic Hall of Mirrors
  • Parallel universe
  • Black holes
  • White Holes
  • Big Bang Theory
  • Shape of the Universe
  • Multiverse
  • Indira’s Net
  • Buckminster Fuller
  • Mirror Symmetry
  • Quantum Biology
  • Relational Science
  • Entanglements
  • Action at a distance
  • Holographic Universe
  • Fractal Universe
  • Recursive Universe
  • Universe as a Cow
  • Universe as a Human
  • Universe as Brahmanda
  • CBOE
  • WMAP
  • ACT
  • Curvature of Space
  • Topology of Space
  • Cosmic Topology
  • Cosmic Harmonics
  • Dodecahedral Space
  • Triloka (Three Universes)
  • Trikaal (Three Times)
  • MultiConnected Manifolds
  • Age of Universe – 13.77 Billion Years
  • 14 Lokas in Hinduism – Realms – Levels
  • Anthromorphic Universe
  • Maha Vishnu
  • 5 Sheaths (Kosh) in Humans
  • Tripartite Universe
  • Triguna
  • Interconnected Hypothesis
  • Cosmic Microwave Background CMB
  • Dark Energy
  • Dark Matter
  • Mirrorverse

Shape of the Universe


Cosmic Microwave Background from different probes

Source: Pintrest/478366791654117997/



Source: PLANCK Data 2018

Source: Decoding the cosmic microwave background

Decoding the cosmic microwave background

The Big Bang left behind a unique signature on the sky. Probes such as COBE, WMAP, and Planck taught us how to read it.

By Liz Kruesi | Published: Friday, July 27, 2018

This all-sky map, released in March 2013 and based on 15.5 months of observation, shows tiny fluctuations in the temperature of the CMB. These variations correspond to minute under- and over-densities of matter that ultimately led to the large-scale structure we see in the universe today. The redder areas represent above-average temperatures, and bluer areas show temperatures colder than average.

European Space Agency, Planck Collaboration

A glow undetectable to the human eye permeates the universe. This light is the remnant signature of the cosmic beginning — a dense, hot fireball that burst forth and created all mass, energy, and time. The primordial cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation has since traveled some 13.8 billion years through the expanding cosmos to our telescopes on Earth and above it.

But the CMB isn’t just light. It holds within it an incredible wealth of knowledge that astronomers have been teasing out for the past few decades. “It’s the earliest view we have of the universe,” says Princeton University cosmologist Joanna Dunkley. “And it gives us so much information because all the things that we now see out in space — the galaxies, the clusters of galaxies — the very earliest seeds of those, we see in this CMB light.”

Extracting these clues from the CMB has taken multiple generations of telescopes on the ground, lofted into the atmosphere, and launched into space. In the mid-1960s, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the CMB’s pervasive microwave static across the sky, it appeared identical everywhere. It would take satellites launched above Earth’s obscuring atmosphere to map that microwave glow to precisions on the order of millionths of a degree. Specifically, three satellites — COBE, WMAP, and Planck — revealed that our current cosmos, which is complex and filled with clusters of galaxies, stars, planets, and black holes, evolved from a surprisingly simple early universe.

The Planck satellite produced the most detailed image of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) to date.

The universe began with the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago as a fiery sea that expanded rapidly. A few minutes later, the universe’s constituent primordial subatomic particles glommed together into an elemental soup of atomic nuclei containing hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium. Electrons and light collided and scattered off of those atomic nuclei. Over the next thousands of years, the cosmos continued to expand, giving the particles more room to move and allowing the universe’s temperature to cool bit by bit. Around 380,000 years after the Big Bang, the temperature dropped to about 3,000 kelvins, cool enough for electrons to latch onto hydrogen nuclei. The universe became mostly neutral hydrogen, with some heavier elements swirled in.

With fewer individual particles zooming around, light could finally move about freely. And so it has traveled, mostly unhindered, in the approximately 13.8 billion years since that time of “last scattering.” These photons carry a snapshot of the 380,000-year-old universe.

Since the 1960s, telescopes on Earth have captured that glow in every direction of the sky. While the light 380,000 years into the universe’s history would have been visible to human eyes if we were around, cosmic expansion has since stretched the light into the longer wavelengths of microwaves — at least, that’s the wavelength astronomers had predicted. But would observations match theory?

The three probes

The Cosmic Background Explorer (COBE) launched in 1989. One of its instruments measured the intensity of the microwave glow at wavelengths ranging from 0.1 to 10 millimeters across the entire sky. The COBE science team’s first announcement, in 1990, was the result of that measurement. The radiation’s intensity plotted by wavelength makes it obvious that the CMB has a very specific intensity curve, where the strongest signal is at 2 mm. That wavelength corresponds to a temperature of 2.725 K. (The wavelength of light, and thus how much energy that light carries, is directly related to its temperature; redder light has less energy and a lower temperature than bluer light.)

COBE’s other instrument broke apart the seemingly uniform 2.725 K glow into more detail, looking for spots where the temperature is warmer or colder than average. It turned out there is a difference of only a tiny fraction of a degree, about 0.00001 K, between hotter and colder spots.

Each successive cosmological probe has improved astronomers’ view of the CMB with better resolution, revealing ever-finer details (anisotropies in temperature and density) that hold the key to assembling an accurate picture of our young universe.

This nearly identical cosmic glow with exactly the right temperature was concrete evidence that the entire sky — the entire observable universe — began in a Big Bang. With such tiny temperature differences across vast regions of sky, those spots must have been in contact at early times. COBE leaders John Mather and George Smoot won the 2006 Nobel Prize in Physics for their work.

But there is so much more that scientists can do with the CMB than confirm the Big Bang. “From the anisotropies, the hot and cold spots, we get the initial conditions — how bumpy was the early universe and also what is its composition,” says Mather.

The next CMB satellite was designed to improve upon these anisotropy measurements, mapping them at finer angular resolutions. COBE could map hot and cold spots of about 7° on the sky, while the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP), launched in 2001 and operated until 2010, could zoom in to a resolution of better than 0.5°. Planck, the CMB satellite that operated from 2009 to 2013, zoomed in even further, to 0.16°.

All of these missions mapped temperatures to the order of 0.00001 to 0.000001 K. To minimize measurement errors related to such small signals, the spacecrafts’ detectors pointed toward two spots on the sky at the same time and measured the temperature difference between them. The satellites swept the entire sky in this fashion, and software generated a map of all those tiny differences. That map holds a treasure-trove of cosmic secrets.

The CMB represents the moment at which the universe became “transparent.” Immediately after its birth, the universe was hot and dense. As it expanded, it cooled, and its density dropped. Within the young universe, photons couldn’t travel very far — a few inches — before colliding with a nearby particle. As the matter in the universe transitioned from plasma (left) to atomic hydrogen (right) 380,000 years after the Big Bang, photons could travel much farther — the width of the universe — without necessarily experiencing a collision. This moment, also called the surface of last scattering, is encoded in the CMB we see today.

Unlocking the early universe
To reveal those secrets, cosmologists study the pattern of hot and cold spots frozen into the CMB and decompose those spots into their constituent sizes. While most of the hot and cold spots are about 1° on the sky, they are overlaid on fluctuations with larger sizes.

“Imagine looking at a smooth pond of water that we might drop pebbles into,” says Dunkley. “If you drop a whole bunch of pebbles in, the ripples will sort of combine together, and you see a whole pattern of ripples across the water. We think of this pattern of slightly different temperatures of this light on the sky a little bit like the pond after it’s covered in ripples.”

The size breakdown of the CMB’s temperature spots, or fluctuations, is like a cosmic Rosetta Stone. The strength of the fluctuations’ signals at different scales is associated with the universe’s age, its ingredients, its expansion rate, and when the first stars lit up the cosmos. By comparing computer models to the signal strengths (which astronomers obtained from analyzing WMAP and Planck data), researchers can piece together what the early universe looked like and how it has evolved.

Thanks to these three cosmic probes, we know the universe began in a Big Bang, and around 380,000 years later, electrons and protons combined, letting light roam free. We know our cosmos is 13.8 billion years old and how fast it is expanding. We know that 31 percent of the universe is matter, but only 5 percent is made of ordinary matter like you and me, while 26 percent is invisible dark matter. Much more of the cosmos is composed of a mysterious, repulsive dark energy — 69 percent.

And perhaps most importantly, astronomers now have a way to find out pieces of information not literally encoded in the CMB itself. That’s because the CMB maps and their statistics have led to the so-called standard model of cosmology.

“We now have a really simple model that describes basically all of our observations,” says Dunkley. “We can track from the very first moments of time all the way through today and make predictions about how large-scale structure evolved. And it has remarkable success. That’s the big thing these satellite missions have given the community.”

Mirror Universe


Our Universe May Be a Giant Hologram

Physicist Brian Greene explains how properties at the black hole’s surface—its event horizon—suggest the unsettling theory that our world is a mere representation of another universe, a shadow of the realm where real events take place.

Brian Greene


Two monster black holes may lie within the double bright area at the center of galaxy NGC 6240. NASA

If, when I was growing up, my room had been adorned with only a single mirror, my childhood daydreams might have been very different. But it had two. And each morning when I opened the closet to get my clothes, the one built into its door aligned with the one on the wall, creating a seemingly endless series of reflections of anything situated between them. It was mesmerizing. All the reflections seemed to move in unison—but that, I knew, was a mere limitation of human perception; at a young age I had learned of light’s finite speed. So in my mind’s eye, I would watch the light’s round-trip journeys. The bob of my head, the sweep of my arm silently echoed between the mirrors, each reflected image nudging the next. Sometimes I would imagine an irreverent me way down the line who refused to fall into place, disrupting the steady progression and creating a new reality that informed the ones that followed. During lulls at school, I would sometimes think about the light I had shed that morning, still endlessly bouncing between the mirrors, and I would join one of my reflected selves, entering an imaginary parallel world constructed of light and driven by fantasy.

To be sure, reflected images don’t have minds of their own. But these youthful flights of fancy, with their imagined parallel realities, resonate with an increasingly prominent theme in modern science—the possibility of worlds lying beyond the one we know.

There was a time when the word universe meant “all there is.” Everything. The whole shebang. The notion of more than one universe, more than one everything, would seemingly be a contradiction in terms. Yet a range of theoretical developments has gradually qualified the interpretation of universe. The word’s meaning now depends on context. Sometimes universe still connotes absolutely everything. Sometimes it refers only to those parts of everything that someone such as you or I could, in principle, have access to. Sometimes it’s applied to separate realms, ones that are partly or fully, temporarily or permanently, inaccessible to us; in this sense, the word relegates our universe 
to membership in a large, perhaps infinitely large, collection.

With its hegemony diminished, universe has given way to other terms that capture the wider canvas on which the totality of reality may be painted. Parallel worlds or parallel universes or multiple universes or alternate universes or the metaverse, megaverse, or multiverse—they’re all synonymous, and they’re all among the words used to embrace not just our universe but a spectrum of others that may be out there.

The strangest version of all parallel universe proposals is one that emerged gradually over 30 years of theoretical studies on the quantum properties of black holes. The work culminated in the last decade, and it suggests, remarkably, that all we experience is nothing but a holographic projection of processes taking place on some distant surface that surrounds us. You can pinch yourself, and what you feel will be real, but it mirrors a parallel process taking place in a different, distant reality.

Plato likened our view of the world to that of an ancient forebear watching shadows meander across a dimly lit cave wall. He imagined our perceptions to be but a faint inkling of a far richer reality that flickers beyond reach. Two millennia later, Plato’s cave may be more than a metaphor. To turn his suggestion on its head, reality—not its mere shadow—may take place on a distant boundary surface, while everything we witness in the three common spatial dimensions is a projection of that faraway unfolding. Reality, that is, may be akin to a hologram. Or, really, a holographic movie.

The journey to this peculiar possibility combines developments deep and far-flung—insights from general relativity; from research on black holes; from thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, and, most recently, string theory. The thread linking these diverse areas is the nature of information in a quantum universe.

Physicists Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking established that, for a black hole, the information storage capacity is determined not by the volume of its interior but by the area of its surface. But when the math says that a black hole’s store of information is measured by its surface area, does that merely reflect a numerical accounting, or does it mean that the black hole’s surface is where the information is actually stored? It’s a deep issue and has been pursued for decades by some of the most renowned physicists. The answer depends on whether you view the black hole from the outside or from the inside—and from the outside, there’s good reason to believe that information is indeed stored at the event horizon. This doesn’t merely highlight a peculiar feature of black holes. Black holes don’t just tell us about how black holes store information. 
Black holes inform us about information storage 
in any context.

Think of any region of space, such as the room in which you’re reading. Imagine that whatever happens in the region amounts to information processing—information regarding how things are right now is transformed by the laws of physics into information regarding how they will be in a second or a minute or an hour. Since the physical processes we witness, as well as those by which we’re governed, seemingly take place within the region, it’s natural to expect that the information those processes carry is also found within the region. But for black holes, we’ve found that the link between information and surface area goes beyond mere numerical accounting; there’s a concrete sense in which information is stored on their surfaces. Physicists Leonard Susskind and Gerard ’t Hooft stressed that the lesson should be general: Since the information required to describe physical phenomena within any given region of space can be fully encoded by data on a surface that surrounds the region, then there’s reason to think that the surface is where the fundamental physical processes actually happen. Our familiar three-dimensional reality, these bold thinkers suggest, would then be likened to a holographic projection of those distant two-dimensional physical processes.

If this line of reasoning is correct, then there are physical processes taking place on some distant surface that, much as a puppeteer pulls strings, are fully linked to the processes taking place in my fingers, arms, and brain as I type these words at my desk. Our experiences here and that distant reality there would form the most interlocked of parallel worlds. Phenomena in the two—I’ll call them Holographic Parallel Universes—would be so fully joined that their respective evolutions would be as connected as me and my shadow.

 Excerpted from The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene. Copyright © 2011 by Brian Greene. Reprinted with permission by Alfred A. Knopf, a division of Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

 See the related DISCOVER feature, “The Strange Physicsand SightsInside Black Holes.”

My Related Posts

Shape of the Universe

Mind, Consciousness and Quantum Entanglement

Myth of Invariance: Sound, Music, and Recurrent Events and Structures

On Anticipation: Going Beyond Forecasts and Scenarios

Consciousness of Cosmos: A Fractal, Recursive, Holographic Universe

Geometry of Consciousness

The Great Chain of Being

Maha Vakyas: Great Aphorisms in Vedanta

Indra’s Net: On Interconnectedness

On Synchronicity

Color Science of Gem Stones

Key Sources of Research

CPT-Symmetric Universe

Latham Boyle,1 Kieran Finn,1,2 and Neil Turok1
1Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada N2L 2Y5
2School of Physics and Astronomy, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, United Kingdom

PHYSICAL REVIEW LETTERS 121, 251301 (2018)

Why some physicists really think there’s a ‘mirror universe’ hiding in space-time

By Rafi Letzter – Staff Writer June 22, 2020

Cosmology of the Mirror Universe

Paolo Ciarcelluti

April 2003 PhD Thesis

Mirror dark matter:
Cosmology, galaxy structure and direct detection

R. Foot

ARC Centre of Excellence for Particle Physics at the Terascale, School of Physics, University of Melbourne,
Victoria 3010 Australia


Mirror dark matter cosmology and structure formation

Roux, Jean-Samuel

PhD Thesis McGill Univ

White holes: Do black holes have mirror images? 

These black hole opposites would spew energy, be impossible to enter, and might even answer some of the universe’s fundamental questions.By Bill Andrews  |  Published: Friday, June 28, 2019

A cosmic hall of mirrors

Jean-Pierre Luminet
Laboratoire Univers et Théories (LUTH) – CNRS UMR Observatoire de Paris, 92195 Meudon (France)

The fractal universe

SEPTEMBER 12, 2018

Love the Reflections in the Cosmic Mirror

The Shape of the Universe: Ten Possibilities

Is the universe a dodecahedron?


Planck and the cosmic microwave background

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope ACT

Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe WMAP

Cosmic Topology : Twenty Years After

Jean-Pierre Luminet,

Laboratoire Univers et Th ́eories Observatoire de Paris-CNRS-Universit ́e Paris Diderot (France) email :

October 15, 2013

Cosmic microwave background anisotropies in multi-connected flat spaces

Alain Riazuelo∗
Service de Physique Th ́eorique, CEA/DSM/SPhT, Unit ́e de recherche associ ́ee au CNRS, CEA/Saclay F–91191 Gif-sur-Yvette c ́edex, France

Jeffrey Weeks†
15 Farmer St., Canton NY 13617-1120, USA

Jean-Philippe Uzan‡
Institut d’Astrophysique de Paris, GRεCO, FRE 2435-CNRS, 98bis boulevard Arago, 75014 Paris, France Laboratoire de Physique Th ́eorique, CNRS-UMR 8627,
Universit ́e Paris Sud, Bˆatiment 210, F–91405 Orsay c ́edex, France

Roland Lehoucq§
CE-Saclay, DSM/DAPNIA/Service d’Astrophysique, F–91191 Gif-sur-Yvette c ́edex, France, Laboratoire Univers et Th ́eories, CNRS-UMR 8102,
Observatoire de Paris, F–92195 Meudon c ́edex, France

Jean-Pierre Luminet¶
Laboratoire Univers et Th ́eories, CNRS-UMR 8102, Observatoire de Paris, F–92195 Meudon c ́edex, France (Dated: 13 November 2003)


The Shape of Space after WMAP data

Jean-Pierre Luminet
Laboratoire Univers et Th ́eories, CNRS-UMR 8102, Observatoire de Paris, F–92195 Meudon c ́edex, France.


Click to access a02v361b.pdf

Dodecahedral space topology as an explanation for weak wide-angle temperature correlations in the cosmic microwave background

Geometry and Topology in Relativistic Cosmology

Jean-Pierre Luminet

Laboratoire Univers et Théories, CNRS-UMR 8102, Observatoire de Paris, F-92195 Meudon cedex, France


The Spectral Action and Cosmic Topology

Matilde Marcolli

MAT1314HS Winter 2019, University of Toronto T 12-2 and W 12 BA6180

Click to access IntroNCGToronto10.pdf

Cosmic Topology

M. Lachieze-Rey (1), J.P.Luminet


Cosmic crystallography

R. Lehoucq1, M. Lachi`eze–Rey1,2 and J.P. Luminet3

  1. 1  CE-Saclay, DSM/DAPNIA/Service d’Astrophysique, F-91191 Gif sur Yvette cedex, France
  2. 2  CE-Saclay, DSM/DAPNIA/Service d’Astrophysique, CNRS–URA 2052, F-91191 Gif sur Yvette cedex, France
  3. 3  D ́epartement d’Astrophysique Relativiste et de Cosmologie, CNRS–UPR 176, Observatoire de Paris–Meudon, France

september 1995

The Status of Cosmic Topology after Planck Data 

Jean-Pierre Luminet 1,2

Received: 19 November 2015; Accepted: 7 January 2016; Published: 15 January 2016 Academic Editors: Stephon Alexander, Jean-Michel Alimi, Elias C. Vagenas and Lorenzo Iorio

Cosmic Topology: A Brief Overview

M. J. Rebouc ̧as

Centro Brasileiro de Pesquisas F ́ısicas, Departamento de Relatividade e Part ́ıculas Rua Dr. Xavier Sigaud, 150 , 22290-180 Rio de Janeiro – RJ, Brazil

and G. I. Gomero

The shape of space between WMAP and planck


Jean-Pierre Luminet

The Shape of Space from Einstein to WMAP data

AIP Conference Proceedings 841, 115 (2006);

Jean‐Pierre Luminet

Planck 2013 results. XXVI. Background geometry and topology of the Universe

The Shape and Topology of the Universe

Jean-Pierre Luminet


Signature of topology of the Universe

Vipin Kumar Sharma

University of Lucknow


Planck 2015 results
XVIII. Background geometry and topology of the Universe

How the Universe Got its Spots

Janna Levin1, Evan Scannapieco1, Giancarlo de Gasperis1, Joseph Silk1 and John D. Barrow2 1Center for Particle Astrophysics, UC Berkeley
Berkeley, CA 94720-7304
2Astronomy Centre, University of Sussex
Brighton BN1 9QJ, U.K.


The Conformal Singularity as a Cosmological Mirror: Classical Theory

DOI: 10.1080/21672857.2013.11519718

Michael Ibison

Early Universe cosmology in the light of the mirror dark matter interpretation of the DAMA/Libra signal

Paolo Ciarcellutia Robert Footb

Physics Letters B
Volume 679, Issue 3, 24 August 2009, Pages 278-281

Making Sense of the Big Bang: Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe


Planck 2018 results. I. Overview and the cosmological legacy of Planck

24. Cosmological Parameters

What Shape Is the Universe? A New Study Suggests We’ve Got It All Wrong

Planck evidence for a closed Universe and a possible crisis for cosmology

Eleonora Di Valentino1, Alessandro Melchiorri  2* and Joseph Silk

Click to access DiValentino2020NatureAst4.196.pdf

A new look at the universe’s oldest light

The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: a measurement of the Cosmic Microwave Background power spectra at 98 and 150 GHz

Steve K. Choi1,2,3, Matthew Hasselfield4,5,6, Shuay-Pwu Patty Ho3, Brian Koopman7, Marius Lungu3,8, Maximilian H. Abitbol9, Graeme E. Addison10, Peter A. R. Ade11, Simone Aiola4,3, David Alonso9

Mapping the Universe

Mark Altaweel | February 18, 2020 | Spatial Analysis

Planck and the cosmic microwave background

Cosmological crisis: We don’t know if the universe is round or flat

What shape is the universe?

As far as cosmologists can tell, space is almost perfectly flat. But what does this mean?

By Cody Cottier  |  Published: Tuesday, February 23, 2021

Is the Universe Curved? Not So Fast

By Paul Sutter December 02, 2019

Planck reveals an almost perfect Universe

2.4. The Cosmic Microwave Background

Decoding the cosmic microwave background

The Big Bang left behind a unique signature on the sky. Probes such as COBE, WMAP, and Planck taught us how to read it.

By Liz Kruesi  |  Published: Friday, July 27, 2018

The Universe Might Be a Giant Loop

By Rafi Letzter – Staff Writer November 04, 2019

Is the universe a dodecahedron?

08 Oct 2003 Isabelle Dumé

Geometry of the Universe :

Cosmological Constraints on Mirror Matter Parameters 

Paolo Ciarcelluti1 and Quentin Wallemacq


What It Means to Live in a Holographic Universe


Our Universe May Be a Giant Hologram

Our universe has antimatter partner on the other side of the Big Bang, say physicists

03 Jan 2019

A cosmic hall of mirrors

26 Sep 2005

Mystery of the Cosmic Mirror

What if the Universe has no end?

Mirror World, E(6) Unification and Cosmology

C.R. Das 1 ∗, L.V. Laperashvili 2 †,
1 Institute of Mathematical Sciences, Chennai, India

2 The Institute of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, Moscow, Russia

Click to access mirror_world_e6_unification_and_cosmology.pdf

We’ve seen signs of a mirror-image universe that is touching our own

Mirror Image Theory Suggests Existence of an Antimatter Universe

Did time flow in two directions from the big bang, making two futures?

Read more:

The Haunting World of the Mirrorverse

Three scientific mysteries which suggest a parallel world

New search for mirror neutron regeneration

L.J. BroussardK.M. BaileyW.B. BaileyJ.L. BarrowK. BerryA. BloseC. CrawfordL. Debeer-SchmittM. FrostA. Galindo-UribarriF.X. GallmeierC.E. GilbertL. HeilbronnE.B. IversonA. JohnstonY. KamyshkovP. LewizI. NovikovS.I. PenttiläS. VavraA.R. Young

17 Dec 2019

New Search for Mirror Neutrons at HFIR

  • October 2017

Leah Broussard
Oak Ridge National Laboratory

Joshua Lawrence Barrow
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab)

B. Chance

Christopher Crawford
University of Kentucky

Radiation as Self-Action via a Cosmological Mirror

Michael Ibison

09 Nov 2015

Astronomical Review 
Volume 7, 2012 – Issue 3

Consciousness And Parallel Universes: Does A Connection Exist?

Niloy Chattaraj

September 19, 2020

The Holographic Universe Explained

A Thin Sheet of Reality: The Universe as a Hologram

The Multiverse Hypothesis Explained by Max Tegmark

Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics

Wassily Leontief and Input Output Analysis in Economics



Wassily Leontief: The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics | Library of Economics and Liberty

From the time he was a young man growing up in Saint Petersburg, Wassily Leontief devoted his studies to input-output analysis. When he left Russia at the age of nineteen to begin the Ph.D. program at the University of Berlin, he had already shown how leon walras’s abstract equilibrium theory could be quantified. But it was not until many years later, in 1941, while a professor at Harvard, that Leontief calculated an input-output table for the American economy. It was this work, and later refinements of it, that earned Leontief the Nobel Prize in 1973.

Input-output analysis shows the extensive process by which inputs in one industry produce outputs for consumption or for input into another industry. The matrix devised by Leontief is often used to show the effect of a change in production of a final good on the demand for inputs. Take, for example, a 10 percent increase in the production of shoes. With the input-output table, one can estimate how much additional leather, labor, machinery, and other inputs will be required to increase shoe production.

Most economists are cautious in using the table because it assumes, to use the shoe example, that shoe production requires the inputs in the proportion they were used during the time period used to estimate the table. There’s the rub. Although the table is useful as a rough approximation of the inputs required, economists know from mountains of evidence that proportions are not fixed. Specifically, when the cost of one input rises, producers reduce their use of this input and substitute other inputs whose prices have not risen. If wage rates rise, for example, producers can substitute capital for labor and, by accepting more wasted materials, can even substitute raw materials for labor. That the input-output table is inflexible means that, if used literally to make predictions, it will necessarily give wrong answers.

At the time of Leontief’s first work with input-output analysis, all the required matrix algebra was done using hand-held calculators and sheer tenacity. Since then, computers have greatly simplified the process, and input-output analysis, now called “interindustry analysis,” is widely used. Leontief’s tables are commonly used by the World Bank, the United Nations, and the U.S. Department of Commerce.

Early on, input-output analysis was used to estimate the economy-wide impact of converting from war production to civilian production after World War II. It has also been used to understand the flow of trade between countries. Indeed, a 1954 article by Leontief shows, using input-output analysis, that U.S. exports were relatively labor intensive compared with U.S. imports. This was the opposite of what economists expected at the time, given the high level of U.S. wages and the relatively high amount of capital per worker in the United States. Leontief’s finding was termed the Leontief paradox. Since then, the paradox has been resolved. Economists have shown that in a country that produces more than two goods, the abundance of capital relative to labor does not imply that the capital intensity of its exports should exceed that of its imports.

Throughout his life Leontief campaigned against “theoretical assumptions and nonobserved facts” (the title of a speech he delivered while president of the American Economic Association, 1970–1971). According to Leontief too many economists were reluctant to “get their hands dirty” by working with raw empirical facts. To that end Wassily Leontief did much to make quantitative data more accessible, and more indispensable, to the study of economics.

Selected Works

1941. The Structure of American Economy, 1919–1929. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

1966. Essays in Economics: Theories and Theorizing. New York: Oxford University Press.


From NY Times

Wassily Leontief, Economist Who Won a Nobel, Dies at 93


Wassily Leontief, who won the Nobel prize in economics in 1973 for his analyses of America’s production machinery, showing how changes in one sector of the economy can exact changes all along the line, affecting everything from the price of oil to the price of peanut butter, died Friday night at the New York University Medical Center. He was 93.

His analytic methods, as the Nobel committee observed, were adopted and became a permanent part of production planning and forecasting in scores of industrialized nations and in private corporations all over the world.

Following the model of his so-called input-output analysis, General Electric, for example, was able to load data from 184 sectors of the economy — such as energy, home construction and transportation — into a mammoth computer to help it predict how the energy crisis brought on by the Arab oil boycott in 1973 would affect public demand for its products and services, from light bulbs to turbines.

A well-known academic figure, Mr. Leontief was the director of the Institute for Economic Analysis of New York University from 1975 until 1991; even after his retirement he still taught at the university into his 90’s. Before coming to N.Y.U. he taught economics at Harvard for 44 years and directed large research projects there as well.

Mr. Leontief was a thinker who often complained that too many of his academic colleagues spent too much time staring out their office windows instead of being out in the field, as any good economist ought to be, counting things. ”Facts,” he said. ”You have to have facts. Theories aren’t good unless you have facts to back them.”

When asked how he developed the input-output analysis recognized by his Nobel memorial prize, he would invariably begin, ”Oh, it’s really very simple — what I wanted to do was collect facts.” The facts he sought were those that explained how segments of production were interconnected.

He showed that if you carefully studied changes in the cost and components of one type of product, you could determine the resulting changes in cost and components of others along the production chain.

Suppose you have a sudden rise the price of oil or steel? Mr. Leontief taught government officials and corporate executives to track how this influenced the costs of production in other segments of a local or national economy, both within an industry or more broadly across many industries and many nations.

Wassily Leontief was born Aug. 5, 1905, in St. Petersburg, the son of Wassily W. Leontief, an economist, and the former Eugenia Bekker. A brilliant student, he was allowed to enroll when he was only 15 at the newly renamed University of Leningrad. But he got in trouble by expressing vehement opposition to the lack of intellectual and personal freedom under the country’s Communist regime, which had taken power three years earlier. He was arrested as he was nailing up anti-Communist posters on the wall of a military barracks and placed in solitary confinement. Released after several days, he promptly resumed his anti-Communist activities and was arrested several more times.

Finally, in 1925, he was allowed to leave the country, a turn of fate he attributed to a growth on his neck. He said the authorities believed that the growth was cancerous and that he would die and be of no use to the state. He left Russia to resume his studies in economics at the University of Berlin, and his parents soon followed. The growth was benign and he completed his doctorate in 1929. He spent a year as an economist advising the Government of China, particularly on the planning of a new railroad network.

Then he came to the United States and worked briefly in New York at the National Bureau of Economic Research, where his published work quickly attracted attention, and Harvard invited him to join its economics faculty. He agreed, provided the university help him develop his ideas about production. Harvard gave him a research assistant and a $2,000 grant to develop the system of input-output analysis that the world was to adopt. He and his assistant began constructing a table covering 42 American industries, taking months to compile figures and perform calculations that computers would latter handle in fractions of seconds.

During the war, he helped the United States Government with planning for industrial production, worked as a consultant to the Office of Strategic Services and supervised compilation of a 92-economic-sector table for the Department of Labor. In 1948, Mr. Leontief set up the Harvard Research Project on the Structure of the American Economy with the aid of large grants from the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations and the Air Force to expand and refine his input-output models. Soon he had a staff of 20 — and a 650-punch-card computer from I.B.M., then the state-of-the art.

He did not, however, keep the Air Force grant long once the Eisenhower Administration came to power; some of its officials were critical of his input-output theory as smacking too much of a planned economy. That was precisely what he thought it should smack of.

One of his goals in studying the nature of changes in industrial production was to enable nations to plan in ways that would be economically beneficial and help them avoid periods of economic hardship. But to some economists the idea of national economic planning was ill advised: not only would it not work, they said, but it might make matters worse and also might open the door to excessive Government control. They maintained it would be better to let the private sector and the free market determine the course of future economic events.

To Mr. Leontief, it seemed short-sighted for nations to devote little or no thought to the analysis of the future of the overall economy, especially after what he regarded as the effective work of modern economists in devising projections that are mathematically and statistically sound. He spoke out often on the subject in the 1970’s and 80’s.

He and Leonard Woodcock, then president of the United Auto Workers, proposed that the Federal Government establish an Office of National Economic Planning to help coordinate economic projects and make recommendations on policies they said could avert unnecessary unemployment, inflation, failures in health care, shortages in affordable housing, energy, public transportation and other requirements of a civilized society.

The idea never materialized. If anything, the generation of younger economists who followed him, many of whom he taught, developed less respect for the abilities of national Governments to plan for the long term. It bothered him greatly that toward the end of the century many Americans seemed to have lost broad faith in their Government’s ability to improve the lot of its citizens, particularly through economic programs.

In an Op-Ed article in The New York Times in 1992, he said there was little doubt that the United States Government had played an important role in a generally prosperous economy for more than half the century, from ending the Great Depression in the 30’s to guiding the nation through most of the rest of the century in generally sounder economic health than most of the rest of the world.

Mr. Leontief was always fearful that employment problems would accompany widespread use of the high-speed computers that he himself relied on almost from the moment they first became applicable for nonmilitary purposes after World War II. He warned that computers would be for many workers what the tractor was to the horse — great for the farmer but not great for the horse.

In an interview in 1996, when he was 90, Mr. Leontief, noting the trend toward corporate downsizing, said: ”Individual entrepreneurs will continue to do better and better and better, but significant segments of the work force will do worse and worse. Ultimately, Governments will have to play a role in arbitrating and correcting this.”

Mr. Leontief seemed to grow more liberal with age. During the student protests on the Harvard campus in 1969, he split with most senior faculty members and joined with a younger group more sympathetic to the protesting students. In 1975, he resigned from Harvard, where he was the Henry Lee Professor of Economics and chairman of the university’s Society of Fellows, its most distinguished group of scholars. He left a year ahead of schedule, complaining that too often teachers at the graduate level did not teach and researchers did not do research.

Shortly before he resigned, he joined an internal report criticizing Harvard’s economics department, which had long been regarded as among the world’s best. The report said that the department had failed to adequately recruit minority faculty members, that it took an overly narrow approach in scholarship and that a ”deterioration in attitudes and relationships” had occurred.

At N.Y.U., he continued to expand his work on input-output analysis and helped foreign nations adopt it. China was among the last to do so, as it intensified its industrialization in the late 1980’s.

Wassily Leontief, a balletomane and connoisseur of fine wines, said he also thought of himself as a squire of Willoughby Brook in northern Vermont, where he and his family had a summer home. It was all very well to be an internationally regarded scholar, but landing a beautiful brook trout, he would say with his sly smile, was his passion.

He is survived by his wife, Estelle Helena Marks, a writer, whom he married in 1932, his daughter, Svetlana Alpers, the art historian, author, and professor of fine arts at the University of California at Berkeley, and two grandsons.



Please see my related posts

Classical roots of Interdependence in Economics

George Dantzig and History of Linear Programming




Key Sources of Research:




Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation*

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973


Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf





How is the global economy interconnected?





Wassily Leontief

Concise Encyclopedia of Economics

Wassily Leontief





Wassily Leontief and the discovery of the input output approach,

Bjerkholt, Olav

(2016) :

Memorandum, Department of Economics, University of Oslo, No. 18/2016

Click to access 877412162.pdf




Wassily Leontief and Léon Walras: The Production as a Circular Flow




Click to access Wassily-Leontief-and-Leon-Walras-the-Production-as-a-Circular-Flow.pdf

Click to access MPRA_paper_30207.pdf




Wassily Leontief, the Input-Output model, the Soviet National Economic Balance
and the General Equilibrium Theory

Fidel Aroche


Click to access Ponencia_Aroche_Fidel_1.pdf





Wassily Leontief: In appreciation

William J. Baumol and Thijs ten Raa

Euro. J. History of Economic Thought 16:3 511–522

September 2009


Click to access leontief%20ejhet.pdf

Click to access Thijs.pdf





Social Technology and Political Economy:  The debate about the Soviet origins of Input Output Analysis

Amanar Akhabbar


Click to access 2006-12-21_Akhabbar.pdf






The National Accounts as a Tool for Analysis and Policy; History, Economic
Theory and Data Compilation Issues

Frits Bos

Click to access MPRA_paper_23582.pdf

Click to access The-National-Accounts-as-a-Tool-for-Analysis-and-Policy-History-Economic-Theory-and-Compilation-Issues.pdf





The national accounts as a tool for analysis and policy; past, present and

Frits Bos

CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis

Click to access MPRA_paper_1235.pdf





Three centuries of macro-economic statistics

Frits Bos

December 2011

Click to access MPRA_paper_35391.pdf





Wassily Leontief and His Contributions to Economic Accounting



Click to access 0399leon.pdf





A Review of Input-Output Analysis


Volume Title: Input-Output Analysis: An Appraisal
Volume ISBN: 0-870-14173-2

Click to access c2866.pdf



Outline of a Simple Input-Output Formulation

Nobel Memorial Lecture, December 11, 1973

Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.

Click to access b541e3fec34aa38c09c9eec41a46981e8fb9.pdf








Click to access rjef2_2013p211-222.pdf





“Input-Output Analysis in an Increasingly Globalised World:
Applications of OECD’s Harmonised International Tables”,


Wixted, B., N. Yamano and C. Webb


OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers,
2006/07, OECD Publishing

Click to access input-output-analysis.pdf






System Dynamics and Input Output Analysis

Charles Braden

Click to access brade166.pdf






Ángel Luis Ruiz
Inter American University of Puerto Rico
Pedro F. Pellet
Nova Southeastern University


Click to access archivo5_vol5_no2.pdf




Leontief and the Future of the World Economy

Emilio Fontela

Catedrático Emérito

Universidad de Ginebra


Click to access FIIRS006.PDF




Classical’ Roots of Input-Output Analysis: A Short Account of its Long Prehistory

By Heinz D. Kurz and Neri Salvadori


Click to access Kurz&Salvarodi_IOsClassicalRoots.pdf






Thomas Wiedmann


Economic Systems Research, 21:3, 175-186

Click to access Wiedman2009_Carbon_footprint_MRIO_introduction_ESR.pdf




Introduction: the History of Input–Output Analysis, Leontief’s Path and
Alternative Tracks


Economic Systems Research
Vol. 18, No. 4, 331–333, December 2006

Click to access 2006_The_History_of_Input_Output_Analysis__Leonthiefs_Path_and_Alternative_Tracks__in_Economic_Systems_Research_.pdf





Sraffa, Leontief, Lange: The political economy of input–output economics








Network Economics of Block Chain and Distributed Ledger Technology

Network Economics of Block Chain and Distributed Ledger Technology


Quadruple Accounting System

Morris Copeland, and Hyman Minsky emphasized quadruple entry accounting system envisioning interrelated interlocking balance sheets of economic agents.  Interlocking balance sheets create a network of economic agents.

I attach a slide from a presentation by Marc Lavoie given at Minsky Summer school in 2010 at the Levy Institute of Economics (Bard College).




There are several FINTECH innovations which are bringing about dramatic changes in the financial services business.

  • Block Chain and Distributed Ledgers
  • Payment Banks
  • Retail P2P Payment services
  • Mobile Payments
  • Secured Wallets
  • Domestic Real Time Payments and Transfers
  • Cross Border Near Real time Money Transfers


Block Chain and Distributed Ledgers, in my opinion, are/can be implementation of quadruple accounting principles envisioned by Morris Copeland and Hyman Minsky.  Two economic agents engage in financial transactions which are recorded in distributed ledgers.

Some of the key components of distributed ledger technology are:

  • Peer-To-Peer Networking
  • Cryptography
  • Distributed Data Storage

In contrast with centralized ledgers, distributed ledgers store data at each node in the P2P network.  So there is no need for an intermediating institution.  From a payment system perspective, each node in the P2P network can be thought of as a bank.   Each node will have its own ledger and balance sheet which will record assets and liabilities.

Ripple is a Cross Border money transfer solution which is based on block chain technology.


Recent rise of retail P2P payment services such as

  • Xoom
  • M-Paisa
  • PayTM

indicates a trend toward real time payments/money transfers domestic and international.  This trend also indicates decoupling of these services from traditional deposit/lending banks. XOOM is a service provided by PAYPAL for international Money Transfers.  Money transfers are within a few minutes.

In USA, there are new P2P services offered to facilitate faster near real time payments/money transfers through mobile and online interfaces.

  • Venmo (Paypal)
  • Zelle (clearXchange Network)
  • Square Cash
  • Braintree (Paypal)

There are also social media payments available now through which consumers can quickly send money using social media applications such as

  • Facebook (through Messanger app)
  • Snapcash (through SnapChat)
  • Apple PayCash (through imessages app)
  • TenCent via WeChat


Rise of payment banks such as PayTM is one such example.  Reserve Bank of India has granted PayTM a payment bank status.  But transfers are still between bank accounts of transacting consumers where deposits are kept. Payment Bank acts as a technology provider and acts as an intermediary.

As per the RBI guidelines, payments banks cannot lend they can only take deposits or accept payments.

There are four payment banks in India now.

  • PayTM Payment Bank
  • Airtel Payment Bank
  • India Post Payment Bank
  • FINO Payment Bank


Mobile payments using secured wallets is another such example.

  • Consumer to Business payments and transfers
  • Consumer to Consumer payments and transfers
  • Google Wallet
  • Apple Pay
  • Android Pay
  • Alipay


Cross Border Payment Solutions:

  • XOOM
  • Earthport
  • TransferWise
  • Remitly
  • WorldRemit



Please see my other related posts:

Next Generation of B2C Retail Payment Systems

Cross Border/Offshore Payment and Settlement Systems



Key sources of Research:


Minsky and Godley and financial Keynesianism

Marc Lavoie
University of Ottawa


Click to access Lavoie.pdf


Block Chain:  A Primer


Click to access MPRA_paper_76562.pdf


Distributed Ledger Technologies/Blockchain: Challenges, opportunities and the prospects for standards

Advait Deshpande, Katherine Stewart, Louise Lepetit, Salil Gunashekar



Banking on Distributed Ledger Technology: Can It Help Banks Address Financial Inclusion?

By Jesse Leigh Maniff and W. Blake Marsh


Click to access 3q17maniffmarsh.pdf



Distributed ledger technology in payments, clearing, and settlement

Mills, David, Kathy Wang, Brendan Malone, Anjana Ravi, Jeff Marquardt, Clinton
Chen, Anton Badev, Timothy Brezinski, Linda Fahy, Kimberley Liao, Vanessa Kargenian,
Max Ellithorpe, Wendy Ng, and Maria Baird (2016).

Finance and Economics Discussion
Series 2016-095. Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,


Click to access 2016095pap.pdf



Distributed Ledger Technology: beyond block chain

A report by the UK Government Chief Scientific Adviser

Click to access gs-16-1-distributed-ledger-technology.pdf


Bitcoin, Blockchain & distributed ledgers: Caught between promise and reality


Click to access au-deloitte-technology-bitcoin-blockchain-distributed-ledgers-180416.pdf



Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement
An analytical framework



Click to access d157.pdf



The Truth About Blockchain

January–February 2017 Issue






Peer-to-peer payments: Surveying a rapidly changing landscape

By Jennifer Windh

August 15, 2011


Click to access 110815wp.pdf