The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Could our universe be similar to looking under a superpowerful microscope  (Read 3082 times)

Offline acecharly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
I know this sounds odd but has anybody a scientist etc ever considered that the universe may be like something extremely small and that if ever we were to get a microscope powerful enough we could look right into an object and see something that looked like a universe.


Maybe im talking total waffle haha

Any thoughts are welcome

Cheers Ace


 

Offline @/antic

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 22
    • View Profile
Hi Ace,

I had the exact same thought, in fact!!!

My idea was that, perhaps, the universe is itself a particle in a much bigger universe.

Thanks for posting it - I thought I was going a bit bananas with that thought!!!
:)

 

Offline acecharly

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 171
    • View Profile
Hi antic,

If its true lets hope the big people in the universe above us don't send us round a particle accelerator it could get messy... !!!


HAHAHA

Ace
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
What you are referring to is the concept of a fractal universe. The intro to one episode of The Simpsons illustrates the basic concept very well. (All I can find now is a 23-second clip from it; the original is about a minute long.) I have my own fractal-universe model, but I can't discuss it in this mainstream-science forum. All fractal universe models and theories are outside the mainstream, so the proper place to discuss them is the New Theories forum.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
No, it's not Phractality :)

Fractal universes are clearly a possibility theoretically, at least one can assume that some properties of a universe can be fractal. And I'm also thinking that it sounds like a sound mathematical model for how life can have so much information from something so small as a seed. But if it was, what about the BB? It may fit some ideas of a cold beginning of the universe though? But it's just theory, and based on what you think you see looking out. We could of course ask ourselves why physics are expected to be the same, everywhere?
==

Thinking about it, we meet a limit in Quantum mechanics where different principles take over so in that motto is does not seem to be a fractal, as I think of it now that is. http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9611197
« Last Edit: 29/09/2012 00:09:43 by yor_on »
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
No, it's not Phractality :)

Which part of my post does this refer to? Do you mean the OP is not about fractal universe models? Clearly, it is.

Do you mean that all fractal universe models are not outside the mainstream? There are many mainstream physicists who believe the universe is a fractal, but there is no consensus about what that means. There are, however, several highly speculative theories and models which have been proposed by mainstream physicists. If a new theory happens to be championed by a Nobel laureate, that doesn't make it a mainstream theory; it's still just a new theory.

A team in Australia recently declared that they have proven the universe is not fractal. Personally, I think they have adopted a narrow view of what a fractal is. (I can't elaborate on that in the mainstream forum.) And they're suffering from myopia, not imagining what might be beyond the Hubble limit. They see no structures larger than the texture of the cosmic foam, so they assume there are none. But the succession of structural scales tends to be about five orders of magnitude apart. Atoms 5 orders bigger than nuclei, galaxies 5 orders bigger than solar systems, etc. The Hubble limit is only about two or three orders of magnitude larger than the median bubble size of the cosmic foam, so if there is a larger structure, it's probably way beyond what can be seen.
 

Offline namaan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 195
    • View Profile
But the succession of structural scales tends to be about five orders of magnitude apart. Atoms 5 orders bigger than nuclei, galaxies 5 orders bigger than solar systems, etc. The Hubble limit is only about two or three orders of magnitude larger than the median bubble size of the cosmic foam, so if there is a larger structure, it's probably way beyond what can be seen.

I remember a post on this forum about the golden ratio and how it arises out of a requirement of efficient packing in space. As fractals grow in space, wouldn't they also be subject to this requirement? I wonder then if the order of five that you mention is the same five in the golden ratio: (1+sqrt(5))/2
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
But the succession of structural scales tends to be about five orders of magnitude apart. Atoms 5 orders bigger than nuclei, galaxies 5 orders bigger than solar systems, etc. The Hubble limit is only about two or three orders of magnitude larger than the median bubble size of the cosmic foam, so if there is a larger structure, it's probably way beyond what can be seen.

I remember a post on this forum about the golden ratio and how it arises out of a requirement of efficient packing in space. As fractals grow in space, wouldn't they also be subject to this requirement? I wonder then if the order of five that you mention is the same five in the golden ratio: (1+sqrt(5))/2

The ratio of 5 orders of magnitude is only very approximate. I'm just saying that the apparent flattening of the curve out to about two orders of magnitude beyond the scale of the cosmic foam is not proof that it remains flat to infinity. We can only see out to the Hubble limit, so we may never be able to prove that there is no structure beyond that scale.

I suspect that, in another century or two, we may be able to focus gravity beyond the Hubble limit, but that is wild speculation, for now. So for the foreseeable future, all these fractal universe theories and models must remain unsubstantiated.
 

Offline yor_on

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • Posts: 12001
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • (Ah, yes:) *a table is always good to hide under*
    • View Profile
The study you refer to seem to assume that if we find a even distribution of matter it can't be a fractal. Where is the support for that definition of a fractal. To me a fractal pack it self up into a (self) likeness of itself, at all scales measurable?  But it does not state that there need to be a randomness to it? If we assume that a fractal is random we also lose the properties we expect making fractal behavior interesting for explaining how the very small can 'compress' information of the very big. And you have a point in saying that we can't guarantee what the non visible part of the universe might look as. But the homogeneity and isotropy of space is assumed to exist at all levels, just as we assume that all physics experiments will behave the same even outside our observational field. And as that proposition is more likely built on what so far have learned about the universe we can see their point there, can't we?

So the question, to me, becomes if there is a demand for a fractal not to, ever, be evenly distributed at some scale, although uneven in some other for example? If that is a mathematical fact then they are possibly correct, but if you can have 'layers on layers' mathematically in where some present a homogeneity whilst other permutations differ from that then? They should need to be more careful in their statement.
 

Offline Phractality

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 523
  • Thanked: 1 times
    • View Profile
The study you refer to seem to assume that if we find a even distribution of matter it can't be a fractal. Where is the support for that definition of a fractal. To me a fractal pack it self up into a (self) likeness of itself, at all scales measurable?  But it does not state that there need to be a randomness to it? If we assume that a fractal is random we also lose the properties we expect making fractal behavior interesting for explaining how the very small can 'compress' information of the very big. And you have a point in saying that we can't guarantee what the non visible part of the universe might look as. But the homogeneity and isotropy of space is assumed to exist at all levels, just as we assume that all physics experiments will behave the same even outside our observational field. And as that proposition is more likely built on what so far have learned about the universe we can see their point there, can't we?

So the question, to me, becomes if there is a demand for a fractal not to, ever, be evenly distributed at some scale, although uneven in some other for example? If that is a mathematical fact then they are possibly correct, but if you can have 'layers on layers' mathematically in where some present a homogeneity whilst other permutations differ from that then? They should need to be more careful in their statement.

A fractal may involve dimensions other than the static distribution of matter, which is all that the Australian team is considering. I'm walking on egg shells, now, trying not to get myself suspended from the forum...again. Further details belong in the New Theories forum.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum


 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums