Micro/macro universes

Last Edited By Krjb Donovan
Last Updated: Mar 11, 2014 07:56 PM GMT

Question

Question I am about to ask is derived from most likely broken notions of cosmology that travel throughout history ever since the concept of infinite divisibility of matter. I am aware that dillema which plagues my mind may be discarded due to its nature, yet I do hope that this doubt set on the path of science can be answered here.

The general question is as follows: Is there any cosmological option that may account for existance of infinite self-similar organisation of matter resulting in 'habitable universes' existing on every size scale, from infinitely small to infinitely large, with regressing scale being the base particles/elements for progressing one?

This theory for some reason seems to be attractive to many. What is more, whenever there is open cosmological discussion on the internet there is always at least one statement icluding such concept, provided that the actual thread contains such elements as bits of information on Fractal structure of matter and universe or infinite divisibility and self-similarity on all cosmic scales. Regardless if this reaction is just the product of human psychology, it DOES state some concept and dillema to evaluate in the eyes of science.

I might be wrong, but I suppose that this question can be stated in other form, containing more specific concpets to be investigated: Dillema no.1-concept states that organisation of matter below Planck's scale is not only fractal and infinitely divisable, but also these circumstances are supposed to support infinite regressing levels of universes/self-similar habitable worlds. Dillema no.2-concept states that Hubble volume-scale (or higher) of observable universe can account for such organisation on higher-scale level that is capable of supporting life-like structures, as well as contain building blocks for progressively larger (with size difference dictated by fractal size of the universe) 'universes'. Progressive ad infinitum. Dillema no.3-time scale for each of the layers correspond to each of these levels of organisation. That implies time passage slowing down with progressively larger levels.

Is this concept actually falsifiable, or at least possible to undermine? How the science of fractals, when incorporated to cosmology and subatomic physics, can view this faulty theory that is so beloved by popular culture and some regions of philosophy?

Below I include the site that is the culmination of this dreadful 'cosmological model': http://fractalcosmology.com/

I apologise for lack of scientific value of this question.


Answer

Hi, All this type of unprovable/disprovable stuff should be kepy out og science, as science can only be done with observable &verifiable facts. All else is theory. So when Dirac postulated the positron, it was theory and only later experiments proved the existence of the positron. But theta theory had a verifiable relaity in that, it sprang from two roots of an equation Dirac was solving. The assumptions you discuss border on speculation. One could write excellent SF based on these concepts (I read one in Marathi,an Indian language, based on this concept, when i was very small. Let me put it in another way. Often real concepts are considered trivial or useless when they are much before their time. Imagine two highly intellectual cave men discussing bernoulli's theorem and predicting the flight of heavier than air machines, and rockets going to the moon! The vulcanisation of rubber and building of cars and sky scrapers and ATMS! All of that would be so much out of context for the other cave men that the two would be summarily executaed for communicating with the devil!! Yet today we know all of them to be true! Heliocentrism took so much effort (even lives) to succeed. The concepts you discuss may be true, but they are so much out of context for our current understanding of the universe, there is no point in discussing them.

regards Jayen

Advertisement

©2021 eLuminary LLC. All rights reserved.