- #1
FuriousBroccoli
- 3
- 0
Most Fundamental Elements?
Science continues to discover more fundamental elements with which to govern its predictions on and to unite a wider breadth of the universe. The latest, string theory, posulates, in laymens terms, that there are even smaller elements governing all aspects of our Universe and unifying the forces.
But why does it end there? It doesn't require a leap of faith to believe that this cycle would be infinite, each element being built on more fundamental elements (time and all forces simply being one of these) down to an infinitely identical ether. This is mere philosophy at a certain scale, but when we're dealing with near-singularities such as the big bang or black holes this would suggest an absolute physical model would be infinitely complex to solve. That is, if each element is governed by constituent elements you could only ever hope to model them at a certain level of inaccuracy and abstraction, one that would consistently break down beyond a certain scale of observation.
Is this view held by any credible astrophysicists? If not, why not?
Science continues to discover more fundamental elements with which to govern its predictions on and to unite a wider breadth of the universe. The latest, string theory, posulates, in laymens terms, that there are even smaller elements governing all aspects of our Universe and unifying the forces.
But why does it end there? It doesn't require a leap of faith to believe that this cycle would be infinite, each element being built on more fundamental elements (time and all forces simply being one of these) down to an infinitely identical ether. This is mere philosophy at a certain scale, but when we're dealing with near-singularities such as the big bang or black holes this would suggest an absolute physical model would be infinitely complex to solve. That is, if each element is governed by constituent elements you could only ever hope to model them at a certain level of inaccuracy and abstraction, one that would consistently break down beyond a certain scale of observation.
Is this view held by any credible astrophysicists? If not, why not?
Last edited: