What is the wavelength of... the universe?

For fun we can calculate the de Broglie wavelength of the universe using: lambda = h / mv

h is Plancks constant
m is mass
v is the velocity

To do this we would have to use an average velocty for the mass in the universe, say 1.5x10^6m/s.

For the mass we can use the value 1.46x10^53kg

Plancks constant is: 6.626x10^-34 J.s

It isn't very big... 3.02x10-93 metres

Originally posted by Dynamike


Because the photon lies at the edge of the fourth dimensional universe. It has already seen the beginning of time and the end.

Its more like, everything in this universe lies at the edge of the universe.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Originally posted by Kashai
Planks Satellite Data indicates you should sit down and shut up....

Any thoughts?

You present no data or specific reference, so there's really nothing of substance in your comment that would indicate I should sit down and shut up. You should at least learn how to spell Planck, for starters.

So you are suggesting I should present data that is already available at this site???? I am not here to do your homework The term "planks" is perfectly appropriate, you need to grow up.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by digital01anarchy
please explain it to me then out of your extensive knowledge lol! I have a degree in telecommunications and a secondary degree in information security

I have a degree in theoretical physics (and several others, too, if you want to play the multiple degree game), so if you want to sarcastically consider that "extensive knowledge" don't let me stop you. And you can find the definition of frequency and wavelength in any college intro physics textbook. Note the things the definitions apply to.

Basically nothing you have done here shows any working knowledge of anything just about anyone can copy and paste from Wikipedia and pretend to be an expert. You have been a thread killer with your non sense Its like you expect a scientific journal article with graphs, calculations and citations to back up ideas on a Freaken conspiracy website good luck with that Einstein! if you have a theory on this topic then by all means share it with everyone instead of knocking down any ideas anyone else has as technobabble.

Originally posted by Moduli

Originally posted by Dynamike
And thirdly, the most important thing I am trying to convey is our universe being considered a singularity.

It isn't considered that, by any real physicist.

I would say no to our universe being a singularity due to obvious problems with singularities but I don't see why our universe couldn't be the interior of an event horizon.

reply to post by Moduli


The funny thing is I have read just about every physics book released by today's most influential theoretical physicists and I nearly quoted a few excerpts from some of them including Hawking theory of the universe being a singularity. I wanted to see if you would outright deny some of my positional standpoints - which you did - for my own amusement.

Perhaps you should read Barrow's, 'The Constants of Nature'- Where he describes the difference between dimensional and non-dimensional constants. He talks about the fine structure constant being a combination of the electron charge, speed of light, and Planks constant. If you thought that the speed of light changing would impact the universe you would be wrong because if the numbers were different but the value of the fine structure remained the same, then the universe would be observationally indistinguishable from our current. The only thing that counts is the dimension less constants.

And even then, recent studies have found that the fine structure may have changed based on the time of measurement and distance from the observer.

You see, you are a normal thinking man with a degree. For those of us who can think outside the box, we see and understand the universe in a different manner.

And for me, I arrived at my understanding on my own. Which means that when I learn about great minds in history who arrived at similar understanding, it is because we learned to see the universe through imagination because relying on physical perception is flawed.

To give you perspective on my view of space time I would liken it to Bach' s Cello Suite 1 on a manuscript. By itself, it would sit lifeless on a desk. You could see its beginning and it's end but not hear the notes, much like any onlooker would see our universe from an external dimension. They would see our beginning and our end because outside of our dimension the past and the future are all the same, just like the marked notes would be on the manuscript of Bach's movements.

But our brains behave in a strange way. They are much like the Cello playing out the interpreted notes. Our brains run on the engine of quantum dynamics, such as quantum superpositioning (although I find it debatable) - they essential play the notes of the music and we interpret it as the present.

But in reality, the future has already been written much like the past. And you have to believe that if you believe in more dimensions than four. So this is how I understand time, which is the reason why I believe our universe could be summed up on one manuscript, which could have a different melody than the next; henceforth, a different wavelength.

Lol. Wavelength of the universe?
Now who has put these 2 words together, is a pure genius.
Gotta love ats

7.23 cm