Infinitie Universes

[NavajoEverclear]

For matter to be three dimensional, would not every particle of it also be three dimensional? So wouldn't there ALWAYS be something smaller? If it is three dimensional, it has a depth in all directions, so it can be broken into smaller pieces (which can be broken intosmaller pieces, and its peices peieces and all following that order, must be made of something smaller (if it is 3 dimensional)). So what if there is a particle (its precises function of frequency or occurance per atom is irrelevant, as it cant be found anyway)----- it explodes from an infintismally (infintisimally dense with infinite smaller particles) small point, then collapses back to that point, and repeats. How about we call this particle A UNIVERSE. We are in one among infinite other, and there are infinite universes within us.

 

I also think this makes sense because how can there be a different type of structure for every particle smaller than the order above it, down through infinity? It would make things much simpler if at a point the structure repeats itself.

[Kaezon]

That's simmilar to my idea, that a universe is a collection of timelines on the 5th dimentional plane and that a sub-space is a collection of universes on the 6th dimentional plane and that the dimentions keep repeating the pattern line, plane, cube, and back to line again over and over.

[NavajoEverclear]

Did you get that idea from the book 'the boy who reversed himself'? Actually it has a different concept (which i don't think would really work physically(well, maybe)), just wondering.

[Kaezon]

Never heard of that book, I come up with all my hypotheses on my own.

[NavajoEverclear]

Much more radical, just wondering. Not a very good book anyway, i dont reccomend it, and your idea makes more sense than the version in that book. What its idea was that there are higher dimensions in space--- 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, so on---- its a fairly accepted theory that time is the 4th dimension, this book refered to it as an extra spacial dimension. Which may be possible, but is completely incomprehensible, and had no scientific (not even in supporting theoretical concepts) basis.

 

BTW, didn't mean to offend you or anything, like saying you couldn't think it up on your own, i was just wondering cuz i rememer reading it. I'm sure that every one of my ideas must have been thought of by someone else (multiple seperate people likely), who just didn't make the idea popular.

[Kaezon]

I wasn't mad, I was just saying, if i was mad I would type lke this:

 

I AM MAD!!!!(this is an example, don't take it serously

[NavajoEverclear]

Good you aren't mad.

 

So what does everyone think about universes being the base structure of particles? As i said, the reason i think it makes sense is because how, or why would there be a unique different type of particle to compose every other smaller particle, infinately? It would be simpler if the order repeats itself.

[fafalone]

Standard concepts like there must be something smaller break down below a Planck length, where structures collapse into energy. Below a Planck, normal laws of physics simply don't apply, so you can't reason that a solid entity 1 unit across could be divided into 2 entities .5 units across; it would collapse into energy.

 

Some numbers:

1 Planck Length: l_p = sqrt((:h:G)/c³) = 1.6*10^-35m

 

Radius of an electron: 2.8*10^-15m

Radius of a hydrogen atom: 5.29*10^-10m

[Guest clifford zagnut]

Look,

 

1 Planck Length: lp = sqrt((G)/c3) = 1.6*10-35m

 

Here are some numbers for you!

 

xy=27

yz=0

xz=316

yh=136

xh=324

 

Tesseract!, say it out loud you have been owned Ho. So don't make me throw down and smack yo azz up. Hollah......

[aman]

I didn't see an additional dimension but an addition of some rotational coordinates.

I also don't think your comments help present your ideas, but I'm tempted to judge your character by them.

Just aman

[NavajoEverclear]

Where in hades did this clifford clown come form? I don't know much about planck lengths (actually nothing) but i think i can somewhat imagine the concept of what you said. BUT are these plancks a theory or a fact?

[Kaezon]

What is a Planck Length? And what was the equation you used?

[fafalone]

Well it's all a theory, but it's the result of equations so it's about as near as you can come to a fact when dealing with quantum mechanics.

[JaKiri]

You're also assuming that all particles are made up of smaller particles, such as in, say, a table.

 

You can't even say for sure if they have actual volume.

[NavajoEverclear]

You are right i am assuming that, i told my logic why in my first post. Why wouldn't they be made of smaller particle (beside the planck length thing)? my reason for assumption that they are explains why i think they would be. I just don't understand how one particle would be unbreakable (it would be if it had nothing smaller than it). No matter how small, if its three dimensional it has depth in all directions, so how could it not be made of something?