'Edge' of the Universe

So, conventional physics is well aware of the scale dimension and makes use of it all the time. The only conceptual leap needed when you begin exploring the Meta Model is to extend this scale numbering scheme in both directions. If the universe actually is infinite in scale then these scale numbers can have any integer value from +oo to -oo. Although it is obvious we can do this in concept, does it make sense as an approximation of reality?

MM argues that it does.

===

I lean strongly in that direction as well. Every time we build a more powerful magnifying glass, we find unexpected stuff on the small end. Every time we build a more powerful telescope, we find unexpected stuff on the big end, too.

And shortly thereafter, someone always steps forward and proclaims (with a straight face) that "Although we thought we had found it the last time, this new discovery really and finally is the Absolutely Biggest (or Smallest) Possible Thing".

I'm not sure how 'they' manage to keep finding someone to say this - the poor schmuck always ends up with egg on his face.

LB

[kcody] "Not every scale number would look alike. If those distant scale numbers you mentioned have particle-smaller layers similar in organization and sequence to ours, then we would expect their view of the universe to essentially be the same as ours.

However, if for example those numbers land at a scale like our elysium, things might appear quite different. Imagine the elyson's universe, surrounded by other elysons and connected to them in some way that permits transverse waves. Very different from what we see, and only a few scales away."

===
Sounds about right. I try to visualize what we might see when we look at a hydrogen atom floating in the elysium ocean by imagining:

*) a one planet solar system (with a Sol-sized star)
*) filled with small balls instead of empty space.

*) If the diameter of elysons is 10^-20 meters (or scale -20)
*) (which is 5 scale ticks - a factor of 100,000X - smaller than a proton)
*) then these balls would be about 14 kilometers in diameter
*) (which is also 5 scale ticks - a factor of 100,000X - smaller than the star).

*) If elysons turn out to be scale -24 objects
*) (9 scale ticks - a factor of 1 billionX - smaller than a proton)
*) then these balls would be about a meter and a half in diameter
*) (9 scale ticks - a factor of 1 billionX - smaller than the star)

*) At scale -25
*) (10 scale ticks - a factor of 10^10X - smaller than a proton)
*) these balls would be a little smaller than a soccer ball.
*) (10 scale ticks - a factor of 10^10X - smaller than the star)

*) and so on.
===

So yes, just a few scales away we see things that don't look familiar. But note that scale -24 really is very close to scale 0 (human scale). And it is inside of the current human scale *range*. By this I mean the size range of things that either have a noticeable effect at human scale (scale 0) and/or that we are able to detect. So even though things down there are different, they are still very much part of "our" universe in the sense that (at least some of) what happens at that scale has (at least some) obvious effects on our scale.

LB

As we approach the proton we would notice that elysons crowd each other more than they did farther away. As we approach the electron we notice that elysons are crowding each other less than they did farther away. These effects represent the current theoretical explanation for the phenomena we call positive and negative charge. More details are available in the various articles on gravity and the Meta Cycle. See the <i>Gravity</i> CD, or back issues of <i>MRB</i>, or some of the articles posted on this site.

Light rays moving through space would manifest themselves as wave disturbances in this ocean of elysons, AKA the elysium. This wave disturbance would be a moving pattern of alternating compression and rarefaction zones. The movement would be in one direction (call it an X axis) while the alternating compression/rarefaction pattern would occur in a plane that is perpendicular to the direction of movement (call it the Y-Z plane)

LB

[kcody] "That answer, though, assumes that so many scales exist. I submit that we have no way of knowing at this time just how many do exist, referring again to the ongoing debate of whether the universe is infinite in content or a finite closed system. To get anywhere with that, ... "

Even though logic seems to support the idea of a universe that is infinite in 5 dimensions, it is always possible that we have overlooked something. Perhaps there really is a bottom. Perhaps there really is a top. Or both.

Our experience to date also supports the idea that time, distance and scale are infinite. As noted earlier, every time we develope a new gizmo to help us see bigger or smaller, we see more - we see new stuff that we couldn't see before. Every time.

[kcody] " ... IMO, the next move is to piece together all of the scales nearby to our own."

I hope my attempt to get started on this is useful to you. Let me know.

LB

(Later, when we get to a discussion of vastly different scales, we will see that things become familiar again. And again, ...)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
However, I suggest that we switch to a more conventional scheme for keeping track of where we are.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I disagree. We already have such a scheme, IIRC a hundredfold difference in size is referred to as "two orders of magnitude".

It's the nested layers of organization I want to examine. The "logarithmic-ish" scale has the side effect of grouping apparently different-scale objects together, true, but it also draws attention to what objects are fundamental at each level of scale.

I'm especially intrigued by the possible border conditions between systems comprised of different-scale ingredients. If my closed-system conjecture has any merit, energy and entropy should exchange at some of those boundaries.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">... there is nothing ... mysterious ... about how [things at] nearby scales interact with each other.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">
In all the things you cited, I do see the weak quantization of size according to layer of organization that I'd expected. Here's a more careful list of layers, by no means complete, with low and high end examples:

-*) subconceptual; insufficient data to conceive
-5) gravitic; C-Gravitons to matter ingredients
-4) elysian; I need to read Pushing Gravity
-3) subatomic; electrons to heavy nuclei
-2) molecular; single atoms to complex organic molecules
-1) cellular; RNA to bacteria
0) ordinary; dust to mountains
+1) planetary; moons to stars
+2) intersolar; solar systems to galaxies
+3) multigalactic; structures of galaxies
+4) superperceptual; too large to see more than its smallest pieces
+*) superconceptual; insufficient data to conceive

Each layer is built from large systems of the next-lowest layer's components. Some of those components appear to be roughly quantized at 10^5 orders of magnitude. Note also, diversity increases with scale.

More importantly, each layer depends on behaviors provided by the ones below, and contributes a new behavior to the ones above; limited by range. For example, two +3 objects are unaffected by mutual gravitation, nor could a graviton imaging device detect them. It would stand to reason that our elysium could never provide a view of +4 objects.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">[things at] vastly distant scales don't, and probably can't, interact in any meaningful way.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Countless zillions of C-Gravitons and elysons interacted with me as I typed this. Go significantly smaller than a CG, and I agree.

Given an arbitrarily powerful telescope, I can see countless zillions of galaxies, superclusters, and perhaps a few wave-fronts originating at still larger scales. All I can do is see them, although our galaxy had to produce the star that produced the planet we're on. Much larger than the local cluster, and I agree.

I assume there's no question that everything sized in between those two can affect us meaningfully. That's a fairly wide range to consider right there. By my reckoning above, at least eight scales had to interact for life as we know it to exist.

Based on the limit of gravity's reach, I'll take "vast" to mean eight or more steps by the scale above, or roughly 40 orders of magnitude; and agree that's the apparent limit of scale interaction.

- Kevin

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />So, conventional physics is well aware of the scale dimension and makes use of it all the time.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

No, from their point of view they're just dealing with floating-point numbers in acknowledgment of obvious differences in metric scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The only conceptual leap needed when you begin exploring the Meta Model is to extend this scale numbering scheme in both directions. If the universe actually is infinite in scale then these scale numbers can have any integer value from +oo to -oo.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

That's not a leap as far as I'm concerned. It is self evident that, in a universe infinite in {length,width,depth} you can simply step back and take in a wider view, or zoom closer and take a narrower view.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Although it is obvious we can do this in concept, does it make sense as an approximation of reality?

MM argues that it does.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I agree with the idea that space and matter can always be divided further, or aggregated in larger quantities. I'm arguing that it necessarily takes time and interaction for that division or aggregation to occur; so there should be a limit of how small one can go and find particles, with those limits of -populated- scale widening as epoch increases.

Suppose two C-Gravitons collide at head-on trajectories. Newton suggests probable mutual demolition, resulting in a spray of even finer particles. Before the first pair of C-Gravitons collided in that manner, could there have been -actual- matter smaller than them? Likewise, before the first galaxies formed, could there have been +4 structures?

I argue that for all of the infinite scales to actually have recognizable contents, requires more than the universe be infinite in duration; it requires that infinite time have already passed. That's a pretty nasty horsepill to swallow, as it leaves only the act of deity to create an infinite amount of matter an infinite time ago.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">I'm not sure how 'they' manage to keep finding someone to say this - the poor schmuck always ends up with egg on his face.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The bureaucratic mentality is probably the only true constant in the universe. There will always be a surplus of pointy haired bosses that want to believe -their- employee found the ultimate knowledge.

- Kevin