A theoritical model for mega and micro, universes that might make up existence

[Alan McDougall]

A possible model for infinity is that there is an infinitely large void (for lack of a better word) which contains "all of existence", in which an infinity of mega and micro universes stretch or condense infinitely, larger or smaller within all dimensions Thus; each universe is relative to some other universe in size or volume. The absolutely smallest indivisible fundamental particle in our universe, might make up countless separate, infinitesimal tiny finite universes, that become the fundamental particles or building blocks of still larger and larger universes, within the mega-void that makes up all of existence..

 

There could be an infinite number of these relatively infinitesimally tiny universes, getting ever and ever smaller, or the reverse getting ever larger and larger infinitely. However, each universe could be a complete universe in its own right equivalent to ours except relatively smaller or larger.

 

I see the size of an object, including one as large as the universe being relative to what you can compare it to, thus at the moment of the big bang singularity, the singularity was not only the smallest object, but also the largest in our yet to be born universe. A mouse is huge relative to an ant, but tiny relative to a mountain

Our universe could be just one tiny quantum fundamental particle or building block of a much larger universe One would never to the point of finding some a final mega or micro universe because there would always a next larger or the next level smaller universe, into infinity, this I call "Existence".

 

Breaking this theory into its simplest expression would be,

 

Everything in existence is just a fundamental particle

 

Alan

 

[MigL]

A fundamental particle, by definition, is not made up of anything, otherwise its components would be fundamental.

 

So definitely NOT a possible model.

[Alan McDougall]

A fundamental particle, by definition, is not made up of anything, otherwise its components would be fundamental.

 

So definitely NOT a possible model.

 

Really are you sure, show citation please?

http://home.web.cern.ch/about/physics/standard-model Matter particles

All matter around us is made of elementary particles, the building blocks of matter. These particles occur in two basic types called quarks and leptons. Each group consists of six particles, which are related in pairs, or “generations”. The lightest and most stable particles make up the first generation, whereas the heavier and less stables particle belong to the second and third generations. All stable matter in the universe is made from particles that belong to the first generation; any heavier particles quickly decay to the next most stable level. The six quarks are paired in the three generations – the “up quark” and the “down quark” form the first generation, followed by the “charm quark” and “strange quark”, then the “top quark” and “bottom (or beauty) quark”. Quarks also come in three different “colours” and only mix in such ways as to form colourless objects. The six leptons are similarly arranged in three generations – the “electron” and the “electron neutrino”, the “muon” and the “muon neutrino”, and the “tau” and the “tau neutrino”. The electron, the muon and the tau all have an electric charge and a sizeable mass, whereas the neutrinos are electrically neutral and have very little mass.

[Unity+]

 

Really are you sure, show citation please?

No citation is needed at all to common sense. If the particle is made up of other smaller particles or strings then it is not the fundamental particle or string. The component that makes it up and does not break down into other forms of matter or energy is the fundamental.

[Alan McDougall]

No citation is needed at all to common sense. If the particle is made up of other smaller particles or strings then it is not the fundamental particle or string. The component that makes it up and does not break down into other forms of matter or energy is the fundamental.

 

My idea, which I admit is far off the scale of normal logic, assumes things can get infinitely smaller or infinitely larger,and what is a fundamental particle, in our particular universe a super-string, would not be able to subdivide into smaller particle strings within the confines of our particular universe. However, given super-string theory and the possibility of an infinity of other as yet unknown dimensions that also might make up the rest of existence, "outside"(For lack of a better word) our universe, the super-string(Fundamental to our universe) might rap/bend/twist/rap,itself into countless other dimensions, resulting in other universes, some bigger some smaller, all maybe very odd and different from each other and so on!

 

Just trying to think out of the box, sometimes physics seems illogical or ridiculous, but take the idea that a proton shot out of the hadron collider at 99.999 the speed of light, to collide with another hadron in the middle,which was shot out from the other end at the some moment, also at 999.999% of the speed of light.. Logic would tell us these two protons should meet or collide at more than 199.999% (Almost twice), the speed of light, when in realty they will meet/collide against all logic at 99.996% the speed of light. Some really crazy ideas have proved useful over the ages..

 

Of course I assume you are aware of the light speed constant and the above example is given for those that might not have an understanding of it!

[Dekan]

Thinking about your two protons, each shot at 0.999 light-speed from opposite ends of the LHC, to collide in the middle.

Each proton "sees" the other approaching at only 0.999c. But that's an illusion. The combined speed must really be 0.999c + 0.999c. As is shown by the high-energy particles showering out from the collision.

 

To prove this, suppose a proton were shot at 0.999c from one end of the LHC. It then collides with another proton which is static - held in suspension as part of a water droplet or something.

 

Each proton will still "see" the other approaching at 0.999c, as before. But will the collision give the same results?

[imatfaal]

Thinking about your two protons, each shot at 0.999 light-speed from opposite ends of the LHC, to collide in the middle.

Each proton "sees" the other approaching at only 0.999c. But that's an illusion. The combined speed must really be 0.999c + 0.999c. As is shown by the high-energy particles showering out from the collision.

 

To prove this, suppose a proton were shot at 0.999c from one end of the LHC. It then collides with another proton which is static - held in suspension as part of a water droplet or something.

 

Each proton will still "see" the other approaching at 0.999c, as before. But will the collision give the same results?

 

You cannot just add relativistic velocities. You need to use the composition law for velocities - you can read about it here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity-addition_formula

 

The velocities and prediction work out correctly when you use the correct formula

[Alan McDougall]

Thinking about your two protons, each shot at 0.999 light-speed from opposite ends of the LHC, to collide in the middle.

Each proton "sees" the other approaching at only 0.999c. But that's an illusion. The combined speed must really be 0.999c + 0.999c. As is shown by the high-energy particles showering out from the collision.

 

To prove this, suppose a proton were shot at 0.999c from one end of the LHC. It then collides with another proton which is static - held in suspension as part of a water droplet or something.

 

Each proton will still "see" the other approaching at 0.999c, as before. But will the collision give the same results?

 

My reading tells me "much more energy is released" from two hadrons approaching each at .999991 from different ends of the LHC and colliding at that combined velocity, than a hadron colliding with a stationary Hadron..