'Edge' of the Universe

<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>
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.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

At first impression, this can't work. A solar system full of soccer balls would produce a resistance to any planet (electron) moving through it, presumably to the point of actually stopping it in its tracks. It would seem that the balls can't be in contact.

- AFTERTHOUGHT -

Right. It does work if you assume each soccer ball has some kinetic energy, ricocheting off its neighbors often enough to enforce a fairly even amount of space between them. The balls being in contact is solid-ish, the reality must be liquid-ish.

That does lead to another interesting conjecture; in places of extreme elyson density, the elysium -would- start to behave like a solid; preventing ordinary matter from moving through, and probably trapping more than its fair share of C-Gravitons.

- 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 />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.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

This implies that the proton has an elysium-attractive property that a neutron lacks, and that the electron has an elysium-repulsive property. Something is missing; whatever gives rise to magnetic attraction must be at work in this level of scale.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">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)<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Are you sure? On second thought yes, there should be compressions and rarefactions on the transverse plane. However, for transverse waves to happen, don't the particles have to move harmonically? That would give rise to such compression/rarefaction, like the air around a guitar string.

But, where's the restoring force that brings the elyson back to its equilibrium positions? I argued before that elysium can't be as dense as a liquid, so unless that's wrong there isn't any "cohesion".

- ANNOTATION -

Seems I'd actually argued that elysium can't be solid.

Follwing these two assumptions, it can't be gaseous either:

1. Transverse waves are the result of harmonic particle motion, which requires the inertia of the particle, and a force causing a stable equilibrium of particle position.

2. The gas phase is defined by a density below the threshold required to ensure that most particle collisions send the moving particle back where it came from.

Therefore elysium ought to be liquid, and "cohesion" applies.

It ought to also exhibit surface tension; this gives rise to the possibility of rarefied "bubbles" containing a lesser density of higher-energy particles. If there are rarefied regions, there ought to also be compressed solid regions, perhaps with ultradense solid MI regions at their centers to create the graviton imbalance that in turn causes the excess elyson density.

More importantly though, liquid behaviors could explain both the strong and weak nuclear forces. Two colliding nucleons would be cushioned by the fluid between them if they have any substantial approach velocity; unless enough pressure is applied to chase the fluid out from between them. Once assembled, the outside fluid pressure would tend to keep the nucleus together.

Reaching just a bit further, the cohesion property could also be giving rise to the electromagnetic forces. As I understand it, magnets are created by aligning electron spins and/or orbits between atoms in materials that have an natural imbalance of spin/orbit momentum. Such an arrangement seems to create a net flow in its adjacent elysium, like the small currents around a ship's exposed driveshaft.

A flow has to have an intake and an outlet, explaining the dipolar nature of magnetism as the physical pressure of two interacting directional streams of locally moving elysium, each trying to restore a continuously disrupted equilibrium.

- Kevin

[LB] " ... I suggest that we switch to a more conventional scheme for keeping track of where we are."

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

---

That is the more conventional scheme to which I was referring.


[kcody] "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."

---

I make a similar assumption. (Everyone else uses the SI accounting scheme and comes up with a scale range of about 40.)


[kcody] "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."

---

I'm disinclined to learn a custom accounting system that only you and I have knowledge of. Especially when there already is another accounting system that serves the same function and that is familiar to just about every technically aware person on the planet. (Don't forget that there are many others on this board that mostly operate in a read-only mode.)

You can use your system if you want to. I'll stick with the SI system and try to translate as needed.


LB

[LB] " ... [things at] vastly distant scales don't, and probably can't, interact in any meaningful way."

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

---

I consider gravitons, estimated to be at roughly scale -30, to be VERY nearyby. I'm not sure where vastly-different starts, but just to pull a number out of my, uh, hat I'd say scale -100. Or maybe scale -1000. In the big direction vastly-different might begin at a different number. But we won't really know until we "get there".

As we learn more about reality, our notion of what is nearby and what is far away is likely to change.

LB

[LB] " ... conventional physics is well aware of the scale dimension and makes use of it all the time."

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

---

It is true that most technologists don't appreciate the significance of the scale dimension. And many of them believe that the small end stops at the planck length, approximately scale -35 I believe. It is not all their fault - it's what we are taught, but most of us don't look closely to see if there might be more to it.

I didn't, at first. And when I did start suspecting that many things (not just scale) weren't right theory-wise I had no clue how to go about "fixing" them. So I moved from physics to engineering where these issues (almost) never come up.

===

[LB] "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."

[kcody] "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."

---

Good. You would be surprised how many people do have a problem considering even the possibility of an infinite universe.

LB

[kcody] "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; ... "

---

This sounds reasonable.


[kcody] " ... 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."

---

But this does not sound reasonable, unless your definition of 'particles' is very limited. At some much larger scale one of our galactic super clusters will appear to be a point particle. But we know it can be subdivided, and that Kevin is one of those possible subdivisions.


[kcody] "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?"

---

Yes. There must have been.

[kcody] "Likewise, before the first galaxies formed, could there have been +4 structures?"

---

Yes. There must have been.

[kcody] "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."

---

Standard MM (allowing for some terminology quibbles) ...

'Infinite in duration' means 'infinite time has already passed'. The future is, of course, still and always TBD in terms of physical things. But conceptual things, like the time dimension, have no trouble going to infinity in the future either.

[kcody] "That's a pretty nasty horsepill to swallow, ... "

---

Odd - I find anything other than infinite time (and space and scale) hard to swallow ...

[kcody] " ... as it leaves only the act of deity to create an infinite amount of matter an infinite time ago."

---

... partly because it is the only circumstance that does *not* require creating stuff from nothing.

It's not that scientists don't believe in god. Some do, some don't, just like normal people. The problem is, 'god did it' isn't a useful way to answer questions. If someone answers "god did xyz", then (if we actually want to understand xyz) we still need to know how it did xyz, why it did xyz, what it did xyz with, how xyz behaves, etc.

For the sake of argument I will stipulate that god did everything. Now, why don't we move on and try to actually understand some stuff.


LB