Is there an existing theory that describes...

[GuitarPat]

... That our universe (meaning our understanding of this expanse of space populated by countless galaxies to an edge to where we can no longer observe) is actually a microscopic piece of (possibly) a living organism,existing in its own exponentially larger universe to ours? And that that implies it too is a microscopic piece of a larger organism and so on, implying that we too possibly contain infinite-exponentially smaller "universes" within us?

 

 

Pat.

[elfmotat]

I believe you're thinking of the ending to Men in Black:

 

[Strange]

Or, to put it another way: no.

[swansont]

I believe you're thinking of the ending to Men in Black:

 

 

Or the Could I buy some pot from you? scene from Animal House

 

To answer the question: No. The speed of light being the limit to communication is a huge constraint on the upper end, and the quantum behavior being different from classical is a problem on the other end. We don't have the science that could explain this, so there can be no theory. Just conjecture, whether chemically-induced or not.

[Sensei]

... That our universe (meaning our understanding of this expanse of space populated by countless galaxies to an edge to where we can no longer observe) is actually a microscopic piece of (possibly) a living organism,existing in its own exponentially larger universe to ours? And that that implies it too is a microscopic piece of a larger organism and so on, implying that we too possibly contain infinite-exponentially smaller "universes" within us?

 

There is no evidence of that.

But IMHO if it would be the case, our billion years could be f.e. 1 pico second of their time..

[sunshaker]

 

Or the Could I buy some pot from you? scene from Animal House

 

To answer the question: No. The speed of light being the limit to communication is a huge constraint on the upper end, and the quantum behavior being different from classical is a problem on the other end. We don't have the science that could explain this, so there can be no theory. Just conjecture, whether chemically-induced or not.

I was just going to have a moan until I seen the second part of your answer that I agree with completely.

 

But yes there is a lot of "conjecture", which I hope and believe will one day become fact.

[Preon]

... That our universe (meaning our understanding of this expanse of space populated by countless galaxies to an edge to where we can no longer observe) is actually a microscopic piece of (possibly) a living organism,existing in its own exponentially larger universe to ours? And that that implies it too is a microscopic piece of a larger organism and so on, implying that we too possibly contain infinite-exponentially smaller "universes" within us?

 

 

Pat.

I have always thought of that as a serious possibility. I have argued in other science forums that intuitively the totality of existence is infinite, because logically once you come to the border of your finite universe, what is on the other side? Its been argued that there is no other side because the space somehow bends back on itself, thus finite. That is equally a possibility. However, I have come to appreciate Kurt Gödel’s axiom that a system cannot prove its operations without referring to something outside and greater than itself. This is not his exact words but that is what it amounts to. He called this The Incompleteness Theory because it has no end; the proofs go on forever. In fact, the proofs also have no beginning either. Thus the universe must be infinitely micro as well as macro. Infinity is certainly a hard concept to master even for the greatest minds. Infinity especially throws a wrench into many mathematical equations. But it is what it is. Unfathomable.

 

Preon

This is the second post I have made in this forum. It is about a theoretical massless particle called preons. It is also my user name. According to some astrophysicists, there is an idea of a hypothetical ultimate particle dubbed a preon that is the true God Particle of mass, although the particle itself is massless. Just when I was getting use to the Higgs boson / field as a stand in God Particle, comes yet something even smaller. Any comments?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preon

 

Preon~

Edited October 29, 2014 by Preon

[GuitarPat]

 

Or the Could I buy some pot from you? scene from Animal House

 

To answer the question: No. The speed of light being the limit to communication is a huge constraint on the upper end, and the quantum behavior being different from classical is a problem on the other end. We don't have the science that could explain this, so there can be no theory. Just conjecture, whether chemically-induced or not.

 

This was actually a research-induced inquiry for my undergrad "Art of Revision" persuasion paper, where i decided to write an essay that persuades an audience stuck on either side of the "evolution or creationism" debate, to consider the possibility of an existence that utilizes both (although maybe not necessarily a creator, but a higher level being of sorts). I came across biocentrism and figured there may be other thoughts on the matter out there. I thought to ask professionals in the field.

Edited October 29, 2014 by GuitarPat

[kevin cooper]

Although I do not subscribe to the concept that we are a microscopic part of a living organism(I suppose our entire universe could be contained in a quark or electron) I do entertain the idea that the universe is part of a larger megaverse that is itself in a hyperverse, and so on. There is also the possibility that there have been several big bangs in the overall expanse of space, creating pocket universes that are like bubbles with their own laws of physics. Normally these bubbles don't interact, but when they do there is a massive release of energy that can result in another big bang. This is my understanding of this crazy effin thing we call reality.

[GuitarPat]

I believe you're thinking of the ending to Men in Black:

 

exactly, except beyond the scope of one galaxy in a marble. like maybe all the galaxies in our universe, and our universe as a whole is a particle in a "megaverse" as described ^. then making any/every particle in our "universe" a universe of its own.

Forgive me for any obvious impossibilities, other than an interest in science documentaries and a high school physical science class, i have no formal schooling in physics.

Edited October 29, 2014 by GuitarPat

[swansont]

 

There is no evidence of that.

But IMHO if it would be the case, our billion years could be f.e. 1 pico second of their time..

 

That's interesting but also raises a multitude of questions that can't be answered. Very much a conjecture.

[GuitarPat]

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/are-we-part-of-a-single-living-organism/

^ an article on Biocentrism

 

I realize that you're not really supposed to post links, but since MIB and Animal house are in, I'm interested to hear what a physicists opinions are on the idea Lanza here is raising (the way he's raising it), or if there are obvious (to you) holes in his logic.

Edited October 29, 2014 by GuitarPat

[Endy0816]

The potential for mass-energy gain or loss would be the biggest issue.

[swansont]

http://www.robertlanzabiocentrism.com/are-we-part-of-a-single-living-organism/

^ an article on Biocentrism

 

I realize that you're not really supposed to post links, but since MIB and Animal house are in, I'm interested to hear what a physicists opinions are on the idea Lanza here is raising (the way he's raising it), or if there are obvious (to you) holes in his logic.

 

That seems to be a different idea, that of the earth being a living organism (and I think we just had a thread on that). It's not really an issue of physics, apart from mentioning the inappropriate mangling of entangled states as a justification for the idea.

[JonathanApps]

I believe you're thinking of the ending to Men in Black:

 

 

 

There's something about it in The Gunslinger by Stephen King as well.

Edited October 29, 2014 by JonathanApps

[Preon]

 

Or the Could I buy some pot from you? scene from Animal House

 

To answer the question: No. The speed of light being the limit to communication is a huge constraint on the upper end, and the quantum behavior being different from classical is a problem on the other end. We don't have the science that could explain this, so there can be no theory. Just conjecture, whether chemically-induced or not.

I think quantum entanglement as a theoretical FTL form of communication is still on the table dispite the problem of collapse. Ie: the Alice paradox.

[Strange]

I think quantum entanglement as a theoretical FTL form of communication is still on the table

 

There is no way of using entanglement as a form of superluminal communication. If you think there is, can you explain how?

[elfmotat]

I think quantum entanglement as a theoretical FTL form of communication is still on the table dispite the problem of collapse. Ie: the Alice paradox.

 

This is wrong. Entanglement is just a correlation between the states of two particles. It's like having a red ball and a blue ball, each hidden inside separate boxes. You bring one box home, open it, and see that the ball inside is red. You immediately know that the ball in the other box is blue without having to open it, but no information was actually transmitted.

[imatfaal]

 

This is wrong. Entanglement is just a correlation between the states of two particles. It's like having a red ball and a blue ball, each hidden inside separate boxes. You bring one box home, open it, and see that the ball inside is red. You immediately know that the ball in the other box is blue without having to open it, but no information was actually transmitted.

 

That is not strictly true. Situations can be created in which a pair in an entangled superposition alongside a subluminal classical information transfer can be used to transfer more information than is transferred by the classical means alone (but as the information transfer is part and parcel of the classical then nothing is superluminal)

[swansont]

Situations can be created in which a pair in an entangled superposition alongside a subluminal classical information transfer can be used to transfer more information than is transferred by the classical means alone

 

Correct, but I think that's peripheral to the assertion being rebutted: that entanglement can be used for superluminal communication. It can't.

 

You can do better (fidelity-wise) than a classical means when transferring quantum state information, but the speed is still limited to c.