Radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry?

[Loren Booda]

Starting at the microscopic entities we observe in our immediate neighborhood outward, then tracing mass-energy evolution from the universal horizon inward, can we determine where processes of both coincide in intermediate space?

Our own Planck regions, quarks, protons, atoms, planets, stars and galaxies span away from our world. Likewise, we theorize or even witness the creation of these bodies in reversed order from the region of the background radiation.

Is there a distance or cosmological redshift for the symmetry that balances these physics? Is there also an explanation that the remote big bang, influenced by the local isometric geometry of expansion, manifests centrally as inhomogeneities?

 

[drag]

Greetings Loren !

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Starting at the microscopic entities we
observe in our immediate neighborhood outward,
then tracing mass-energy evolution from the
universal horizon inward, can we determine
where processes of both coincide in
intermediate space?

I have no idea what you mean (maybe that's
why I'm the only one answering ).
I do not see the distinction you appear to
indicate.

How about this thought :
According to current physics I believe you
might say that everything becomes more of
a blur as it is further away from us in time
and space. We can think of ourselves as
our own candles in (an infinite ?) darkness.

Very poetic of me, but completely useless...

Live long and prosper.

 

[Loren Booda]

Looking outward in many ways is equivalent to looking inward. The entities, particles and energy we experience on smaller and smaller scales, say from hydrogen atom to nucleon to quark, are similar in their exploration by both accelerator and telescope. I am trying to say that there is an equilibrium point where, starting from both observer and deep field, and extrapolating from quark to nucleon to atom to planet to star to galaxy to intergalactic space, these phenomena converge.

It is hard to imagine that what we consider to be the larger scale structures actually are a projection of ancient small scale processes. For instance, would your call the cosmic background radiation an artifact of the macroscopic or microscopic? Is not the initial singularity now spread across the sky? Therefore, what is the middlemost ground?

 

[drag]

Greetings !

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand what
you mean by "the middlemost ground" ?

We have symmetry for space-time in GR and
symmetries for the other forces in QM,
are you referring to their points of
disagreement (doesn't look like that, but
I don't get it) ?

Live long and prosper.

 

[Loren Booda]

Take physics at local radius r-->0. This physics is the same as that observed relatively to global radius R-->R_horizon. Increase the local radius measured to r_n=10^-13 cm, then observe nucleons correspondent to nucleon production at a relative global distance R_n just within R_horizon. Increase the local radius measured to r_H=10^-8 cm, then observe hydrogen correspondent to hydrogen production at a global distance R_H<R_n<R_horizon.

Our Sun is observed to have a local radius of r_S=7 x 10¹⁰ cm, our Galaxy of r_G=7 x 10²² cm, and clusters of up to r_c=10²⁵ cm. Reciprocally, the relative scale of initial entity creation follows globally inward from the horizon: stars are formed, then galaxies, then clusters, where R_clusters<R_galaxies<R_stars<R_H<R_n, but r_clusters>r_galaxies>r_stars>r_H>r_n.

My question for the equilbrium between local measurement and global production might be phrased "Where is r_x first equal to R_x, and for what x?"

 

[heusdens]

Originally posted by Loren Booda
Looking outward in many ways is equivalent to looking inward. The entities, particles and energy we experience on smaller and smaller scales, say from hydrogen atom to nucleon to quark, are similar in their exploration by both accelerator and telescope. I am trying to say that there is an equilibrium point where, starting from both observer and deep field, and extrapolating from quark to nucleon to atom to planet to star to galaxy to intergalactic space, these phenomena converge.

It is hard to imagine that what we consider to be the larger scale structures actually are a projection of ancient small scale processes. For instance, would your call the cosmic background radiation an artifact of the macroscopic or microscopic? Is not the initial singularity now spread across the sky? Therefore, what is the middlemost ground?

We are. We (humans) stand in the middle between the macroscopic large and the microscopic small.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by heusdens
We are. We (humans) stand in the
middle between the macroscopic large and the
microscopic small.

Oh really ? Maybe it's something bigger,
like our egos...

 

[Loren Booda]

heusdens-

Please refer to my previous posts. Did I ever ask

what stands in the middle between the macroscopic large and the microscopic small

?

 

[drag]

Actually, I'm STILL not certain what you're
asking.