'Edge' of the Universe

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />[kcody] "A universe whose contents are truly infinite requires that substance and structure exist without having 'gotten there somehow'."

This is a ... so so? .. description of TVF's concept of a 'matter ingredient', but not of anything that is a real physical entity.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Wasn't trying to describe any particular thing, but rather all "real things" at any scale you care to look at, and the structures that are made up of those "real things".

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">NOTE - Few people have trouble understanding infinite distance and infinite time. But groking infinite scale seems to be hard for just about everyone. I have no idea why I was different, but for some reason I have not had that problem. It just clicked with me the first time I read about it.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

I'm pretty sure that I'm grokking infinite scale and just not buying it. However, pretty sure isn't enough. You sound informed and thoughtful on the subject, care to assign an essay question that I should answer in the context of infinite scale?

Independently; I'm not so sure that scale is a dimension. I'm all for the idea, don't get me wrong - but it seems like the "scale dimension" is really a convenience. Objects in other scales than our own can be described in terms of four dimensions, using either very large or very small numbers.

If that supposition is right, it means "scale" could be taken as a quantized value indicating layers of structure. Particles at equal scale can collide in a Newtonian manner, and particles at different scales do not.

For example - not trying to fit reality exactly, just demonstrate the idea - let's say atoms are at scale zero. Molecules would also be at scale zero. Grains of sand, rocks, and planets would be at scale 1. Solar systems and galaxies might be at scale 2. Subatomic parts might be at scale -1. Elysium might be scale -2. CG's might be -3 or -4.

Again, that last is speculation.

- Kevin

[kcody] " ... let's say atoms are at scale zero. Molecules would also be at scale zero. Grains of sand, rocks, and planets would be at scale 1. Solar systems and galaxies might be at scale 2. Subatomic parts might be at scale -1. Elysium might be scale -2. CG's might be -3 or -4."

Many different schemes are possible for keeping track of where we are on the scale dimension. This one sounds reasonable, and I especially like its logarithmic characteristic. According to it the "detectable" universe runs from about scale -1 on the small end to about scale +3 on the big end.

Try this on for size, using your example as a starting point: what sort of things do you suppose might exist in the neighborhood of scale +200,000? Or near scale -42 trillion trillion trillion ... la tee dah ... hum hum ... trillion and one?

LB

(We can talk about the really BIG numbers later on.)

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
Try this on for size, using your example as a starting point: what sort of things do you suppose might exist in the neighborhood of scale +200,000? Or near scale -42 trillion trillion trillion ... la tee dah ... hum hum ... trillion and one?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Before that can be answered fully, it is necessary to understand how nearby scales might interact. Not every scale number would look alike. If those distant scale numbers you mentioned have particle-smaller layers similar in organization and sequence to ours, then we would expect their view of the universe to essentially be the same as ours.

However, if for example those numbers land at a scale like our elysium, things might appear quite different. Imagine the elyson's universe, surrounded by other elysons and connected to them in some way that permits transverse waves. Very different from what we see, and only a few scales away.

That answer, though, assumes that so many scales exist. I submit that we have no way of knowing at this time just how many do exist, referring again to the ongoing debate of whether the universe is infinite in content or a finite closed system. To get anywhere with that, IMO, the next move is to piece together all of the scales nearby to our own.

- Kevin

[kcody] "Before that can be answered fully, it is necessary to understand how nearby scales might interact."

This seems like a reasonable starting point to me as well. However, I suggest that we switch to a more conventional scheme for keeping track of where we are. I claim that this will show that there is nothing ... mysterious ... about how [things at] nearby scales interact with each other.

I also claim that later on this will lead us to the conclusion that [things at] vastly distant scales don't, and probably can't, interact in any meaningful way. But first things first.

LB

Suppose we define the zero point of the scale dimension as 10^0 meters. This is a very convenient size for humans to deal with, one that we can literally "wrap our arms around". The next tick marks on the scale dimension in the small direction are at 10^-1 meters, 10^-2 meters and so on. In the big direction the next tick marks are at 10^+1 meters, 10^+2 meters, etc.

IOW, the scale numbers in this scheme correspond to base 10 integer exponents of the SI distance unit (meter).

Using this scheme the examples you mentioned would change as follows:
LB

To help us think-about/visualize interactions among things at the various nearby scales, here are the sizes of a few more common items using this scheme: The detectable universe therefore runs from about scale -19 on the small end to about scale +26 on the big end (but the experts argue about the stuff at each "end" of the scale).

LB