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

Potential View of Cosmology?

  1. Aug 27, 2010 #1
    Hello,
    I've been thinking recently about the truths and realities that are found in the Universe and I just wanted to share a bit of what I have been thinking about. I'm 16 years old right now and I have a drive to understand the way nature displays itself to conscious beings. I'd like to structure what I'm talking about into a few different sections so it's more concise, I'll try my best.

    Archetypal Concepts Permeating Reality
    I've seen throughout all areas of study and everyday explanations of what is happening the same recurring themes, an archetype is a great word to explain it. For example, the concept of transferring "Data" is seen in everything... Human DNA carries a biological data the same way (not technologically the same way) that computers transfer data through microchips and other electrical imprints.
    How is it that information can be transferred through electricity? If there is indeed an encryption of say, "Binary Code" that is transferred through electricity then does that mean that electricity has some type of carrying capacity through which information can be transferred? So... what does that say about other phenomenon? Can information be transferred and processed better through another state of matter like in Plasma, could Plasma computer processing be viable if theoretically it would work? But that is somewhat beside the point, it just seems evident to me that there is a framework in which things are explained and understood.
    This Data analogy could be carried on to any different subject area such as Chemistry where the encryption is found at the molecular level and bonds have an inherent tendency to display certain results under certain conditions, it is a wonderful example of causality. Even in sub-atomic Physics there is a sort of imprinted code on how certain particles behave relating to fundamental constants. Isn't it interesting that fundamental constants are explained by a relationship of 2 "Units of Measurements" that Humans have created, for example:
    Values of h Units
    6.62606896(33)×10−34 J·s
    4.13566733(10)×10−15 eV·s
    6.62606896(33)×10−27 erg·s
    All it is, is a ratio between two ideas that humans have created to explain reality which means that they have an intrinsic quality in the Universe, they are not contrived in any way or potentially not true. It's like how Math can be the only explanation of reality that is correct no matter what, a^2 + b^2 always equaled c^2 whether or not humans (or any other intelligent life for that matter) became conscious of it or not. These fundamental constants seem to be a "Data Transfer" on a much deeper level relating not specifically to Physics but to how the actual Universe was created and how it will end (assuming time is not cyclical, which I think it is).
    What I'm trying to say is that this idea of a Data Transfer can be seen in so many different ways and permeates through all different areas of study as well as other philosophical realities that are not even explained yet, can we use these archetypes to predict future discoveries in a certain subject like Physics for example by applying a certain theme that is seen throughout all of nature to a specific problem? The entire point of this is not about the concept of Data transfer itself but that Data transfer is an example of one of the archetypes that humans tend to explain things in and an example of how the universe really works.

    Beyond Archetypes: Omniview
    It seems that this whole "archetype" of explaining and understanding things the way humans do is almost seeing reality through tunnel vision, there is no greater picture. It's like someone who has got past being selfish and focused on the individual and starts to care about their own generation of human beings and trying to make the world a better place, well you can still take a step back completely from all of that and see your own generation of humans as insignificant in comparison to the vast timescales that could potentially exist for humans to experience (assuming we become a spacefaring civilization, don't decay through nuclear war or embrace a garbage culture like we have been for the past 10 years for far too long). How far is it that you can zoom out or for that matter zoom in to different concepts, not just the history of human civilization and the potential prevalence of it in the future. It appears that this same idea is seen in Science where you can zoom in to a level of Quarks but zoom out to the level of a multiverse. Considering these types of ideas is it not plausible that our entire known Universe with it's fundamental constants is but a quark inside a proton that is the multiverse, and there are a certain amount of multiverses and antimultiverses that create an "Atom" at a much grander and larger scale? Could there be forms of matter at an even bigger scale that are made of those "Atoms"? Why is it that we can only consider the observable Universe as "all that there is", where do Black Holes lead to? What does a Singularity really mean, and is the concept of a Singularity even correct?
    Is it possible that the Universe is actually just the surface area of a sphere and all black holes are leading to the center? Since we live in 4-dimensional spacetime could this not be an example of 5-dimensional shadowing onto the 4th dimensional world? For example, the observable universe is a sphere of 5th dimensional spacetime, but all we see is a the surface area of the sphere as if it was flat. Like how a 2-dimensional being could only imagine 2-dimensions even if something 3-dimensional was being projected or shadowed onto it, how do we know that higher dimensional realities aren't being "shadowed" onto our 4-dimensional space time? Could this be an example of such anomalies like "Dark Matter", "Black Holes", "Dark Energy", Matter/Antimatter coupling and other Paradoxes that almost seem (taking the analogy of "other-worldly") other-universely? Is it plausible that Black Holes at the center of galaxies give back a sort of torsion field for any conscious beings inside that galaxy to harness as willpower? If a Black Hole is taking in all matter and energy it has to be giving SOMETHING back, visible or not... so what could that be?

    To be honest, I've really gone off on a tangent here and hopefully someone reads this wall of text crit that I'm dishing you but these are just some of the things that I have been thinking about and there just seems to be a sequence and relation to EVERYTHING and that there is some sort of underlying "principle" maybe? That everything can be explained through an omniview instead of research scientists focusing tunnel vision on a specific topic inside of a specific subject like researching "Exotic Plasma Propulsion" inside of the general topic of "Plasma Physics" which is just an aspect of Condensed Matter Physics, which is still under a huge category referred to as Physics. So if that is zooming IN to "Physics", what about zooming OUT? What will you be able to see? What new ideas and concepts could be explained by having an understanding of everything that is more comprehensive than studying a specific part of an already specific subject?

    I'll stop now,
    -Sam Reid
    _______________
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 28, 2010 #2

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    I'm sorry, but that's really too long for me to read in depth as a forum post. However, I'd like to make one comment on units.

    What we have discovered with regard to fundamental constants is that things which we previously thought were completely distinct (such as "distance" and "duration"), have turned out to be intrinsically linked when we get down to how these things behave. However, we developed some particular way of measuring distance based upon history, and some different way of measuring duration based upon history, and so we need a "unit conversion factor" to compare a duration to a distance. That unit conversion factor is the speed of light.

    There are similar conversions between distance, duration, mass, energy, electric charge, temperature, and others. So in physics, one thing we often do is work in a unit system where we use the exact same units for everything, whether it's temperature or distance. This removes all conversion of units from the calculations, and significantly simplifies equations that include combinations of different units. You can read up on Planck units here, if you're interested:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

    So I guess the punchline is that fundamental constants like "c", "h", "G", etc. only really exist because of the history of our unit system. Things like force, distance, and mass are intrinsically linked by physical law (in this case, gravity), and if we use the right system of units, these constants all disappear.
     
  4. Aug 28, 2010 #3
    Really? I was under the impression that the speed of light was an actual thing. Light travels at the speed of light and so does every other electromagnetic wave, are you telling me this number is not actually fundamental?

    In reality isn't there an actual cosmic speed limit, even if Planck units are used to equate c to 1?
     
  5. Aug 28, 2010 #4

    Chalnoth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Well, as I said, it's a unit conversion factor. One can sensibly talk about, for instance, one meter of time (3.3 ns), or one second of distance (300,000km).

    Not at all. It does mean that in natural units, every speed is quoted as a fraction of the speed of light. For instance, a speed of 0.5 is half the speed of light. And you can't have a speed greater than 1.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Potential View of Cosmology?
  1. Horizon of view (Replies: 3)

  2. Star Viewing (Replies: 2)

  3. Cosmological curvature (Replies: 27)

Loading...