From molecules to galaxies

[ObieX]

Just a little food for thought. This concept is simple, but its kinda hard for me to put it into words, so bare with me. And let me start by saying i dont like the term "universe".

Consider the Atom. An atom is made up of sub-atomic particles - protons neutrons and electrons. Now take those particles, they are made up of even smaller particles. Electrons, for example, are made up of Quarks. Quarks, in turn, are made up of even smaller particles (strings?). And , theoretically.. on down the line.. smaller and smaller... to what?

Now lets go the other way...

Atoms combine to make up molecules, which combine molecularly to form massive bodies themselves - planets and stars - which make up individual solar systems. These solar systems merge and combine and swirl to become galaxies. These galaxies and those that have been formed for millions/billions of years and those being formed currently on the outer edges of our "universe" *construct* our "universe".

So i have two questions to chew on.

1) Is it possible that our "universe" is on some insanely massive scale combining with other "universes" to form some other even more insanely massive conglomerate, which, in turn, would combine with similar conglomerates to form yet something even bigger.. and up on so on and so forth?

And the second question, which makes my head hurt even more.

2) Keep in mind that "matter" is comprised of mostly empty space. Everything else is these "particles". (with me so far? ..good) Now if these particles are made up of smaller particles... which in turn are comprised mostly of empty space and even smaller particles.... and those particles are comprised of mostly empty space and the even smal... well you see where im going with this i hope.. are we really made of nothing at all? Swirling, tugging, expanding, spinning masses of nothingness?

I'll even go on a slight tangent for the hell of it... because once i start with this shit i cant stop.. because my thoughts keep building on one another. If matter and energy are the same and interchangable (which they are) what exactly is energy? Matter can change into energy and energy can change into matter but how can we really define either if neither truly exist.

Dont even fucking get me started on anti-particles!

[Dragonlich]

1) Yes, it is possible.
2) Yes, we are. But actually, that nothingness is called "energy".

[ObieX]

So then, in theory, a different "plane of existence" could literally be a reality where "matter" could be composed of "subatomic" particles (atleast subatomic to that plane) , which would consist of smaller particles, which could quite possibly be composed of our universe and trillions of other universes.

[Loki]

I believe the term coined up to describe a myriad of universes is "Multiverse", but correct me if im wrong...

[ObieX]

Yea i just wanted to avoid that term because of it's connection with the movie "The One" valid term or not hehe. That and i wanted to use more "universal"ly understood terms.

[BeaverHunter]

damnit where the boobies at

[Dragonlich]

Originally posted by ObieX
So then, in theory, a different "plane of existence" could literally be a reality where "matter" could be composed of "subatomic" particles (atleast subatomic to that plane) , which would consist of smaller particles, which could quite possibly be composed of our universe and trillions of other universes.

Actually, we probably have a dozen dimensions, all here as we speak. We just can't see them, because we're only able to see three-dimensional things, living, as we do, in a three(+one) dimensional world.

That different/higher "plane of existence" would be the multi-dimensional system we're part of. And it's not so much "subatomic" particles, but "sub-dimensional" particles.

Let's put it like this: a dot is a one-dimensional particle. a line is two-dimensional. They exist in our three-dimensional world. In fact, an infinite amount of these one- and two-dimensional "particles" exist in our world. Likewise, our three (+one) dimensional world is just one small part of the multi-dimensional reality, and there's an infinite amount of such parts.

Edit: Duh... a dot is a *zero*-dimensional "particle", a line is *one*-dimensional and a (mathematical) plane is *two*-dimensional.

[CSflim]

I would diffinately agree with your first proposition.
I don't see any reason to believe that the universe that we reside in is absolutely everything in "existence"
In the same way that fish swiming in a garden pond must realise that the pond that they are living in is not Everything.
I would be almost certain that there is more than just our universe, but what form it would take is impossible to say. Something entirely inconcievable I would imagine.

As for your second proposition, I find that harder to believe.

You claim that since matter and energy are interchangeble that they are in fact nothiness.
Matter is a form of energy. As such we are all constructed of energy, not nothingness. To say that we are constructed from nothingness doesn't really make any sense, due to the very definition of nothingness.

[Beltruckus]

isn't there a theory that all the universes are part of a Huge (relative term) bubble, and those bubbles are part of something bigger, basically what you were saying, I was reading a book by Isaac Asimov that had these in it... I was like 12 it could have been bogus but... Also what if our exhistance is part of a cell of some being?

[ObieX]

pulling from Dragonlich
's answer to number two some lessons on matter sprang back into my mind. Matter basically comes from a "void" of nothingness. When a particle is sucked from this "void" a particle and anti-particle is created that has the exact opposite property, however since all matter and energy levels remain exactly the same some energy must be returned to this void in equal measure. My problem is, im still extremely unclear as to how this void is defined (in ANY terms other than the word "energy" or "nothingness")

To respond to CSflim, if the actual "matter" part of "matter" is only made up of empty space and smaller "bits" of matter, then that matter is mostly empty space itself, the rest being smaller "matter" that is mostly empty itself. But what exactly is the "solid" part of the matter that exists other than the empty spaces? One can say that that is "energy" but what exactly is this energy if it exists on such an insignificant and immesurable scale, if it even exists at all? The only reason we "know" it "exists" is because we can see it, touch it, etc.. but what exaclty are we seeing and touching etc? We "see" is the way light is effected, and a Photon in and of itself is an extremely difficult thing to define other than being a particle that exists as both its real and anti-particle at the same time - how that is possible i have no idea. On the other hand it would make sense to believe that we are literally born from light. When a light particle splits into a random form of matter, both its real and anti-particle. So could the void itself be photons? Or maybe just a portion of this void?

[bad30th]

I find that the similarities between the structure of an atom and that structure of a galaxie (universe, whatever) are too similar to be just coincidence....

I say there is definitely something happening on a VERY large scale....as well as a VERY small scale

Vague, i know, but i'm tired and this stuff hurts my head

[constant]

Don't forget about Information, a lot of scientists are proposing that "Information" is a dimension, like time.

[rogue49]

Well, there several different potential "perspectives" of the universe.

Scalar: The first is the one you talked about. (see concept in the movie "MIB")
Dimensional: The one Dragonlich talked about. (that's mostly in a spatial context, 4th and so on)
Probability: The movie "The One" is based on this. (What if?)
Parallel: Multiple Universes
Polar: Matter/Anti-Matter
Time: Expansion/Contraction, and over again onto infinity.
and more...

There are an infinite Infinities out there that potentially make up our Universe.
The key is to understand the one we actually do live in.
This scale, this time, this polar, this dimension, this scale...

As our tools allow us to go beyond our current sensory limitations,
we will learn to manipulate our environment even further.

[mjollnir]

I came up with this same theory while tripping on acid once, in a nutshell- atoms and galaxies are much alike, perhaps atoms on some small level are galaxies, and perhaps our galaxie is also an atom of a larger reality

[pr0f3n]

To address ObieX's question regarding matter-
(and correcct me if I'm wrong here)
When you're pressing your finger against a key on your keyboard, what's happening on the atomic (and smaller) scale is the electrical field present in the molecules in your body are pushing against the molecules in the keyboard. This is how we "touch" solid objects. Solidity isn't anything more than electrostatic fields repelling each other.

I kind think there's an assumption being made that isn't valid in terms of the concept being discussed. "Matter" is a form of energy. Energy takes multitudinous forms, but what it all comes down to in terms of matter is fields, primarily electrical, that bond, repel, and interact with the environment around them. People can'/haven't taken a peek at the protons of a carbon atom, they're detected/interpreted by instruments measuring a particular condition that is affected by the desired object of study.
In other words, we "see" it by measuring what it does. Like proving the moon is there by watching the shadow it casts on the sun. I have to admit I'm not a serious study on the subject, so this is mostly a general ( possibly wrong) understanding of things.

I'm not sure what you're saying regarding photon's, I've never heard of them being polar particles co-existing. My understanding of matter/anti-matter is that that is by definition impossible, matter/anti-matter immediately obliterates each other barring of extreme circumstances.

[nine]

There's a line in a book called American Gods which goes something like "There was nothing, absolutely nothing and plenty of it". Great line

[zenmaster10665]

I have to say that you have just verbalised what I have thought for a very...very long time...

Thanks.

[duckznutz]

dont be too scared about everything being 'empty' . . . . . . . you are 90% water remember . . and only one gene different from a cabbage! Its the little things that count . . . . and if everything is mass or energy (both of which can be detected and measured) . . . then what is God? Oh I nearly forgot . . . . .

[MacGnG]

Like the end of "Men In Black" ?

that came from a book, Isaac Asimov. not sure which book tho. should read them, my dad suggested them but i havent read them yet.

[ObieX]

Yea sorta like the end of men in black i guess, but more along the lines of the universe making up, say, a giant quark of a giant electron or something.

[skinbag]

There was a good Mork n' Mindy episode on this where Mork somehow shrinks into a blade of grass in infinitely smaller divisions until he reaches a "parallel" but slightly altered universe. Sorry if I got to deep on y'all.

[zenmaster10665]

Originally posted by MacGnG
Like the end of "Men In Black" ?

that came from a book, Isaac Asimov. not sure which book tho. should read them, my dad suggested them but i havent read them yet.

Mac, would love to know what book this is from...any ideas??

[Nisses]

erm, no

just, no

an atom will never expand on its own, it will never gradually increase or decrease in size.

the universe does increase in size at a gradual level, with scientists debating on whether it will ever stop doing this or not.

Bad30th: Also, what part of the structure of an atom and a solar system (since I believe you are basing this off of the solar system that looks alot like the nucleus with the electrons flying around it in circles) are so similar?
The fact that the sun has a positive charge? Not really, gravitational pulls are present (and a good thing too) but you'd see every and all electronic devices on earth go bonkers if there was a strong electric pull.

The fact that the planets go in a somewhat circular fashion (which isn't true for most of them, especially pluto) doesn't work for the electrons either, since they do not revolve around the nucleus in orbits but in orbitals, of which some can hardly be called circular. The circular orbits are a remnant of an older atomic model.

Also, how many electrons do you know of that have a satellite orbiting around them like our moon for instance?

[Nefir]

an atom will never expand on its own, it will never gradually increase or decrease in size.

An atom may not, because even though its alot less succeptible to attraction forces than larger bodies, it is still effected by it. But at that size, quantum physics is possible, because these forces we are used to seeing everywhere are alot weaker.... Now imagine if you went even smaller! Those particles would not only expand and contract on their own, but would exist in all possible states of expansion/contraction at the same time!

Remember how humans once thought that the earth was the center of the universe? Everything is relative, so completely rejecting the possibility that we are just one little cog in an infinitely large machine that works nothing like the physics we are used to is just silly IMHO. Considering how much we simply cannot measure, we are in no position to prove this theory otherwise.

[MacGnG]

Originally posted by zenmaster10665
Mac, would love to know what book this is from...any ideas??

its the end of one of his books. the aliens playing marbles, something like that. no idea which book it is tho

[Aias]

These are very good questions, and you are not alone in asking them. The ancient Greeks, specifically the presocratics, often thought and argued these questions. There were three main guys who came up with ideas of what the universe was made of, one of their answers came very close to the same question you asked in section one. The presocratics were mainly obsessed with finding the ARCHE (ark-AY) of everything, which meaning the ruling principle (the stuff that made up everything else).

Thales of Miletus believed that the arche was water. He believed that everything, when it died, eventually liquified. Today we know this not to be true, since we can identify the smaller parts of water. The main argument of this would be if everything is made of water, then why doesn't everything have the properties of water?

Anaximander of Miletus believed that the arche was the APEIRON, meaning the limitless, or the unbounded. He believed that the stuff that made up everything was:

1) Limitless and unbounded with respect to size (could be infinitely small or infinitely large).

2) Limitless and unbounded with respect to time (has no beginning, and no end. Exists of itself)

3) Limitless and unbounded with respect to material properties (Could have the property of anything existant.)

4) In motion eternally (We classify motion by change.)

So the stuff that Anaximander believed made up everything else was infinite in number, properties, age, and change. Even though this theory seems simple and unscientific there is little that can refute it because it is all encompassing (not to mention a little vague). Suggesting that water is made up by the same material as fire seems a little odd, but when one allows that the APEIRON makes water to exist with water's properties when it is water and fire to exist with fire's properties when it is fire the theory can fit. For example, Coal and Diamonds are made up of the same molecular composition, but arranged differently, therefore they have different properties.

Only a few fragments of Anaximander's work still exist, but we do have a quote from another author, Simplicius, that still exists.

"The things that are perish into the things out of which they come to be, according to necessity, for they pay penalty and retribution to each other for their injustice in accordance with the ordering of time, as he says in rather poetical language."

I feel that no matter how close we get to truely understanding what the arche is, we will never really find it because, when size is a issue can't something always be "smaller"? And can't that smaller thing be larger compared to something else? We have not come very far in over 2000 years of philosophy and science when we consider this question of the arche.

[ObieX]

Great post Aias

[ccxcone]

Your questions pretty much sum up all my religious and philosphical beliefs, so answering them will be fun for me.

1.) This pheonomena you described is my definition of God. Since things keep increasing in size, the increments go to infinity. If you reached infinity, you would have omniscience. The highest point would be everything and anything at one given instant, but that point is unreachable and exists at the same time. This has many implications, and I'm not entirely sure of them myself, but it is my belief that the highest point is the collective will of all things in the multiverse.

2.) Where the last point was infinity, this point would be the negative infinity on the scale of all things. The lowest denomination would be pure energy, which, as you showed, is mostly empty space. Since we are in fact, made of nothing, reality as we see it can only be explained as a form of consciousness. The only reason we know that we actually exist is because we have our sensory organs telling us that we do, but when they go away (death), what do we have then? We'd still exist, since we were composed of nothing in the first place, but how would our consciousness play? Because of that gap, it's my belief that you either reincarnate, or you simply return to the greater scheme of all things as a formless consciousness, as a different form of energy. Thinking about these things is really a big mind trip, and it could probably drive you insane if you thought about it too much, but I find it a good exercise for enlightenment.

[Slims]

If strings are real, they are the smallest.

1) Is it possible that our "universe" is on some insanely massive scale combining with other "universes" to form some other even more insanely massive conglomerate, which, in turn, would combine with similar conglomerates to form yet something even bigger.. and up on so on and so forth?
Um, my understanding is that yes, other universes can collide with ours, in a very abstract sense, but I don't think they combine. In fact, one of the more popular big bang theories explains it as a 'collision' between two brains, on one of which is our universe.

In answer to your second question, if strings are real, then there really isn't anything but vibrating loops of energy, or, as the physicist on big thinkers put it: "Music playing in ten dimensional hyperspace'

[bennyb]

Obviously by all of the posibilities this is probably something that the human brain cannot comprehend. Maybe in a few million years, when the human race has evolved to some higher form of life. Until then, i throw the towel in.