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

Is size circular ?

  1. Jun 10, 2006 #1
    Is size circular ? If physics discovers that A is composed of B, and B of C, this would be a typical reductionist view A -> B -> C. Now imagine that at the planck level C ends up being composed of a smaller A, and the above loop goes on forever. If you were at any given size level you could say A is composed of "a smaller" A and is encolsed within a "larger A". But if the 2 As are identical except for size and the loop goes on forever, then A would really simply be composed of itself. You couldn't distinguish between the larger and smaller, they are relative and an infinite "recursive" like loop. Then an easy way out would be to think of the sizes like points on a circle. If you keep on going along the circle you will get back to the point you were at.

    So maybe size levels are like this, if you keep on getting smaller you get back to the original size. It is a bit like an inversion in space, at a certain point even though you seem to be getting to smaller items, you are actually going back up to larger ones. So maybe particle physics will end up being composed of circular sizes, just like the earth is round and if you walk straight you can get back to where you started, so reductionism could be like this. And maybe even explanations in general and time and many other things like "irreducible" complexity could end up being circular, self-composed, within an infinite recursive loop. An ultimate elementary particle is made up of itself and enclosed within itself, a monolithic slab.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 11, 2006 #2
    An interesting example is if this circularity is applied to time. Then if you go farther in the future you end up back into the past. Or if you consider smaller and smaller time intervals you start getting back to larger times either gradually or with giant jumps, like at 10 to the minus 100 milliseconds time jumps to trillion of years. If you apply circular time with a combination machine going back and forth in time on a circle, you can overcome the COMBINATIONAL LIMITS. Like all the combinations of bits on a DVD would be equal to all the possible films, or applied to books all possible ideas. So 10 to the 10 billion bytes exceeds our ability to try them all out, but with circular time you have an infinite amount of time and you can try them all out.

    An interesting case could be that if the electron contains a universe named "A", then the electron of the universe "A" could coincide with the original electron. Since the relationship of sizes is coherent and defined within a single universe, but does not need to be coherent outside the universe, then sizes and the concepts of "containing" or "being contained within" do not have to be respected. Hence the smallest dimension can simply conicide with the largest. You would get an infinitely recursive universe, or a sizeless universe where sizes matter and are coherent only in a small range of reciprocal dimensions.

    It could be that the planck level sizes and dimensions and smaller, not only render time and space incoherent, but also logic, mathematics and the very concepts of sizes, and larger or smaller sizes or containing or contained within. Hence since greater than or less than cannot be defined, neither can logic or math be used. At 10 to the minus 1000 mm the sizes are so small that they are GIGANTIC.
  4. Jun 11, 2006 #3
    Another idea that comes in mind is if the universe is actually only 2 dimensional and the depth dimension really is a size dimension. If something is far away it looks smaller because it IS smaller. When we take a picture and project a 3 dimensional world on a 2 dimensional picture maybe we are actually getting back to the true nature of the world. Things seem far away because in reality they are smaller, and their size changes constantly by bringing them closer and farther. And maybe the entire universe is a plane that is ever expanding or contracting with some things getting smaller and larger relative to each other but globally decreasing or increasing.
  5. Jun 11, 2006 #4


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    A kind of circular argument was the concept of "bootstrap", suggested in the 1960'2 and revived from time to time. Check SPIRES and/or the arxiv.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook