Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Is Every Point in The Universe a Microcosm of the Whole of Creation?

  1. Sep 29, 2006 #1
    One of the great theories of physics is the theory of special relativity.

    This theory is based on two concepts: -

    1. The speed of light is constant.
    2. The laws of physics are the same in any inertial frame, regardless of position or velocity

    Given the validity of these concepts and a little analysis of their implications we can conclude that natural space-time is not Euclidian. By that we mean that when time is taken into consideration the theorem of Pythagoras does not apply. The square of the interval between two events is given by: -

    Delta s^2 =Delta X^2 + Delta Y^2 + Delta Z^2 - Delta cT^2

    This equation is known as the Minkowski metric.

    The important distinction between this equation and the Pythagorean equivalent is the presence of the minus sign in front of the T term. If the geometry of the real world was Euclidian then this would be a plus sign. This is a very important result from special relativity and gives space-time characteristics which are not predictable through our normal intuitive view of the world.

    One such characteristic is the path of light beam. When light radiates out from a light source the path i, when represented on a space-time diagram, forms a cone known as a light cone. The curious thing is when we try to represent a light cone in the geometry defined by the Minkowski metric; it collapses to a single point. In the real world geometry the light hasn’t gone anywhere. The light energy is instantaneous transferred from one place in the universe to somewhere else without experiencing any time or traversing any distance. The light cone has collapsed to the source In Minkowski space-time everything on the surface of the light cone must be contiguous (next to) with each other. The location of the light source contains not only the source itself but the entire contents of the perceived surface of the light cone radiating from it; both future and past. The source is therefore a microcosm of everything existing on the light cone.

    But this not all! Light cones radiating out from any location in space-time must always intersect each other. This means there are zero interval paths connecting everything that has happened, everything that is happening, and every thing that will happen. Making every event a microcosm of the whole of creation.

    This begs the question if this was true then why do we experience space and time and why doesn’t everything happen at once? From the perspective of The Minkowski geometry the universe is just there and does not experience the evolution of time. Time seems to be a subjective experience and depends amongst other things on the state of motion of the observer. Although the entire world seems connected by zero interval paths, there are many other paths in the world which have finite extensions and an observer is limited to travelling these, we are forbidden to travel along a zero interval path; to do so would require infinite energy.
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 6, 2006 #2
    from what i can perceive, yes . everything is/or is a part of/ energy cycles/progressions. a cycle within a cycle is a microcosm, due to the variance in size.
  4. Oct 6, 2006 #3
    from what i can perceive, yes . everything is/or is a part of/or both.. energy cycles/progressions. a cycle within a cycle is a microcosm
  5. Oct 6, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    just because we named the phenomena time, doesn't mean we understand it, but it does exist, it's very observable.
  6. Jan 11, 2007 #5
    It seems to me that no one has ever observed time. One only observes motion. The time component of motion is a mental construct consisting of arbritary units such as 'a second' or 'a minute'. Watching a clock is really not observing time. You are just observing motion which is the only empirical component of time.
  7. Jan 12, 2007 #6
    It seems obvious that a clock or the rotation of a planet are artificial and arbitrary measurements. The only other place time seems to exist is in the mind. As such time can only be viewed as an abstract concept. :bugeye:
  8. Jan 12, 2007 #7


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    When I first saw this posted twice, I thought it was a mistake. Then I realized it was a cycle!
  9. Jan 13, 2007 #8
    To Bilbo:
    Could we then conclude from application of the Minkowski metric that "that which is an intermediate interval between events of existents is Minkowski space-time" --thus making Minkowski space-time an objective experience for those existents ? Just an abstract thought that comes from reading your post.
  10. Jan 15, 2007 #9
    It has always amazed me that some seem to think that the actions of photons (both real and imaginary) somehow control what happens in the quark world, which is the foundation of the REAL world we live in.

    It is not the photons that connect everything. It is the gravitons.

    There is no real or empirical evidence at all that "every event is a microcosm of the whole of creation". Sometimes it is best to step back from the equations and observe what is really happening.
  11. Jan 15, 2007 #10
    I have a question. It is known that force carrier particles cannot be classified as either matter or antimatter. But, consider the force carrier particles called pions. While each matter pion is the antimatter of itself, each individual pion is composed of more fundamental matter + antimatter entities called quarks.
    So, now my question--is it "in theory" possible that the graviton as a force carrier has fundamental matter + antimatter entities of which it is composed (using the pion as an analogy) ? If yes, what are these called, if not, why not possible--what law(s) of physics would be violated. Thanks.
  12. Jan 16, 2007 #11
    Mesons are unstable and the graviton is probably vey stable so I would not expect the graviton to be composed of any quark-antiquark combinations. The graviton is also so weak that it is probably not composed of any combination of any known subatomic particles.

    I speculate (at current knowledge levels, it is more speculating than theorizing) that the quark is not a fundmental particle. The quark is probably a composite particle composed of some configuration of sub-sub atomic particles (let's call them the subG Particles) that interact to form the various forms of quarks, and in the process generate the graviton particle. Because the graviton is such a weak force it would likely be generated by sub-sub atomic particles.

    If one were to ask Leucippus or Democritus what they knew about atoms, they would probably say that about all they knew was that atoms were very, very small. Today, we know about the same about gravitons.
  13. Jan 20, 2007 #12
  14. Jan 22, 2007 #13
  15. Jan 23, 2007 #14
    Obviously, the 'concept' of anything is a construct of the mind. I agree, seconds, frequencies and measurements are indeed constructs of the mind. However, cycles (not the concept of them) are as 'objective' as anything gets. I would urge you to check out www.cyclesresearchinstitute.org or simply Google 'study of cycles'. Once you have accepted the objective reality of cycles you will see that the empirical verification you seek is , in fact, possible. :bugeye:
  16. Jan 24, 2007 #15
  17. Jan 25, 2007 #16
    If we assume the theory of relativity is correct, and I think that is a reasonable assumption, then yes, space-time is not Euclidean. It is not Euclidean because of the lack of a metric, instead it has a pseudo-metric, and also it is not Euclidean because it is intrinsically curved.

    But strictly speaking this is not a metric, since it violates the triangle inequality, at most you can say it is a pseudo-metric.
    So we have to conclude that natural space-time violates the triangle inequality.

    I would not use the term collapse though, since nothing really collapses here.

    No, the light did not transfer at all in Minkowski space-time.
    But I understand what you are trying to say.

    You can find this idea reflected in for instance twistor space, twistors were developed by Roger Penrose. In twistor space the path of a light beam is represented by a point and an event is a Riemann sphere.

    Sounds a bit mystical here, not quite sure what you mean. I think that many are quickly turned-off by teminology like "microcosm" and "creation".

    Conceivably for the same reason we observe quantum state reductions instead of quantum state space.
    A measurement is what a system X asserts about itself, so obviously there are limits, both in QM, in the form of the uncertainty principle, and in SR, in the form of indeterminism of "whose clock is really slowing down".

    Well there are more than just null paths to consider with regards to causal connections. Null paths simply demarcate the boundaries, and "boundaries" is a rather confusing word when it comes to a space-time that has a Minkowski, or more generally, a Lorentzian pseudo-metric. For instance consider the 4-volume with a constant distance in a Minkowski space-time, you will notice that this volume is infinite.

    Well in classical theory that is correct. But in QM it is not forbidden for a mass particle to travel at c.
    For instance Dirac has argued that while the average velocity of an electron, which obviously has mass, is < c, the speed, with all the "quantum zigzagging" is c. But he may be wrong.

    But in this topic one important factor is missing, space-time is not Minkowskian, since Minkowskian space-time is flat. We have to extend the causal structures of Minkowskian space-time onto curved space-time, which is called a Lorentzian space-time. It is far from obvious, at least to me, how this is straight forward. For instance, standard path integral methods simply do not work on a Lorentzian curved space-time. Wick rotations do not work either.

    Now try to think one step further and assume that the null paths on a Lorentzian manifold are subject to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Then we could not even determine if something is time- or space-like!
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  18. Jan 27, 2007 #17
  19. Feb 28, 2007 #18
    Isn't what your saying about cycles implying there is no time? is there any space that can contain no time/all time? If there is no linear time from point a to b, but only a cycle of time 2 pi r (?)--a rotation--and, space is a linear measurement (i.e. angle, depth, length, breadth, etc.) then there is no space and no time right? there is only infinity, and only one infinity can ever exist so there is only 1.

    Then there is only cycles within cycles (part-icles) existing as ebb and flow, sort of a rhythm, a sine curve. There is no beginning and no ending. It is all indeterminate. But, all matter has a beginning and an ending.

    Penrose tiling will help some of the questions I think. Also check out a penrose tiling in conjunction with L-systems and Koch curve, and the fibonacci series. This will link you to the only spectrum of energy (life force), the infinite EM spectrum from 0 (absence), 1-infinity. Only 1, you see not linear, but everywhere in all directions. right? indeterminate energy. A koch curve represents itself within itself indefinitely. 1. Everything in the universe is nothing more than a representation of 1 or the absence of 1(0) which actually doesn't exist either because infinity is 1. Also check out experiments by Alain Aspect and Holograms, the division of a hologram specifically contains all the parts of the whole it was divided from. You see--still infinity, right, still only one image.

    Man, I must have hit my head pretty hard.

    Infinity is like a ruler. The markings are arbitrarily set, and they are time/distance. They are essentially imaginary, because each marking can be divided down to infinity (therefore the markings don't exist). This is why there is no smallest particle (because they can continue to be divided to infinity). And from any one of those markings to infinity, the ruler becomes infinitely long and infinitely wide. The term 'universe' is just an arbitrary marking of the ruler. This is also why there is no need for a big bang. :surprised because if whatever was the singularity that existed 'in the beginning' contained all of the energy of infinity, there is no need or such a thing as expansion (since everything in it would have merely been smaller increments of the singularity to infinity)--it is imaginary. right? I mean, if something could possibly contain infinity (1, all) why is there a need to expand? can you shrink infinity? Can you grow infinity? No it simply is, be, now. Energy can neither be created no destroyed, simply take new form, and that form is microscopically similar to the whole --hence hologram, and incarnation of matter. Therefore if there was a big bang, energy would have been created, or if not then energy would have had to come from some external source by absorption (endothermically). right?

    Energy can neither be created nor destroyed: in a closed system? in an open system? is infinity open or closed? Energy is itself indeterminate. If we measure it, then we go back to the ruler of infinity above, the measurement is arbitrary, and can always be subdivided, renamed, reconfigured, etc. It is malleable depending on your view.The ruler of all energy is the EM spectrum.

    The only being that is omnipotent and omniscient is God right? The only 'ruler' by which we can know him is Christ, or Light, right? Then that makes everything that exists a EL-ment (God-part-icle) of the All or Him, right? Hey, I'm not preaching just taking this thread to the hilt.:shy:

    Then menkowskian space-time cannot be flat, right? It is also just an observation of a part-icle an apportionment, a mark on the ruler of the ALL.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Is Every Point in The Universe a Microcosm of the Whole of Creation?