Is the universe the remnants of a split atom in a lesser dense eh "omniverse"?

Are the stars, our Sol included-- actually lesser dense photon radiation created in the Big Bang, and is the explanation of how photons can be discribed as particles and/or waves and both be discribed as both having matter and being matterless, that we live in one out of an infinite number of multiverses distributed in complex dimentional complexes of energy, time and density?

Photons, since most stars, but not all are in tidal lock with other stars making them circle eachother in pairs, thus producing waves in lesser dimentional complexes or rather spirals or helixes; in hyperspace and that they emmit light by photons in an even denser nanoverse, with undetectable mass by our instruments? Planets, galaxies and black holes and so on could be other kinds of particles. What if "that goddamn particle" has a less denser cousin in the astroide belt? Would we one day in the future philosophy along the lines of: What is the halflife of the universe?

I have a few more ideas to this, but I'll leave it there for now. So what do you guys think?

"This, nah, it's not a rock, it's a lesser dense down-quark. In Autralia they have up-quarks..."

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


If we are and it is

Then the "Big Bang" which happened so long ago in our perception may have actually just happened and the fact that the Universe as we know it is expanding at supposedly an ever increasing speed could be explained by your hypothesis.

To those Giant atom smashers our existence would only last but for such a brief moment

However in our perceived view of things we have quite a few billion years more to go.

Time is relative, right?

SLAYER69
reply to post by Utnapisjtim

 

If we are and it is

Then the "Big Bang" which happened so long ago in our perception may have actually just happened and the fact that the Universe as we know it is expanding at supposedly an ever increasing speed could be explained by your hypothesis.

To those Giant atom smashers our existence would only last but for such a brief moment

And thus the speed of light is not constant, but simply a near constant expression of the accumulated kinetic energy stored in each photon/star at the moment of the Big "splitting of the 60ft primordial atom" Bang? It's just that at our given time fraction, an initial stage of the explosion, is so stretched out that we don't notice the slowing/ acceleration going on. And at this time-fraction Einsteins light-constant works, but let's say in 3 billion years when the halflife of our universe is fading and the star-photons have done their part, our sudden dissapearance is simply interpreted as "Damn, that's what I call a spark..." in the "higher" lesser dense reality outside our now stabilised, or dead, universe?

SLAYER69
Time is relevant, right?

Highly relevant and also relative if we are to believe ol' Albert.... Perception of time is highly relative to how the brain functions in our different species and genetic nomens of any given species. To an elephant we run around like mice, while Ganesh simply swaggers around waving his trunk. Perhaps?

Amazing. This is definitely worth investigating.

Funny...was just discussing constellations with my six year old last night...and I remembered the importance of perspective. I brought up the topic of an anamorph. I discussed with her the idea that if the earth were not in the position it is in (by a good deal, but, obviously in space you don't talk feet you talk thousands of miles, if not hundreds of thousands of miles), Orion, for instance, would not look like what we see it as today...

To say it blew her little mind away, is to put it mildly....oh, the fun I'm going to have with her brain....

zeroBelief

To say it blew her little mind away, is to put it mildly....oh, the fun I'm going to have with her brain....

Please be gentle, enough crazy scientists strolling around in this world as it is. What if she starts questioning your authority and have you brought in for killing the Easterbunny!

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


See, this is exactly why I need to better proof before posting

Great point by the way

reply to post by Utnapisjtim

Cool idea, but I do not believe an omiversal decay rate theory can accurately depict the universe. That is, I think the general connotation of atomic decay is a misunderstood depiction of what is really happening.

However, I think your choice of picking something that you believe to be a uniform function is great principle for trying to solve universal physics -- I think you just chose the wrong function.

And to be fair, my universal physics theory is that everything is a thermoelectric convection system of charge and spin. Feel free to shoot it down if you want.

Utnapisjtim

zeroBelief

To say it blew her little mind away, is to put it mildly....oh, the fun I'm going to have with her brain....

Please be gentle, enough crazy scientists strolling around in this world as it is. What if she starts questioning your authority and have you brought in for killing the Easterbunny!

edit on 15-1-2014 by Utnapisjtim because: changed word

Well, considering in the course of a fifteen minute discussion last night I broached the idea that some people think the universe was created by "The Big Bang" theory...and some people theorize that an all knowing God created the universe..... I explained to her that altough I personally have no absolute way of knowing either way, I *think* it's more likely that "The Big Bang" theory is correct....But that not everyone agrees, and that's ok....

Mind you, this all came up because she loves Sheldon from "The Big Bang Theory".....so, I had to explain it to her....

Now, mind you...I also invented the "Evil Fairy Mother"...that would come and suck the blood out of all of her favorite toys that she would leave out over night...so, she wanted to protect her toys...and should pick them up and put them away, right ?

I pick and choose the nightmares I inflict on this child

I'd wager that we live in an endless fractal universe, where no matter how far down you go you will always still have an infinite ways to go. The matter we see is 99.9% empty space when you get down small enough, the universe we see is 99.9% empty space when you look big enough. Maybe we are only one level of this fractal and every single atom within the universe is just another star or planet on an even tinier scale? The micro seems to mirror the macro, so maybe the micro and the macro are one and the same?



Our brains and the universe seem to have a lot in common when you look at this picture, so maybe our brains create this infinite fractal? Just a thought. S&F

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


And the shadow of a ytterbium atom looks just like a spiral galaxy. Maybe "fractal" is an excellent word to keep in mind when thinking of the universe.

AfterInfinity
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

And the shadow of a ytterbium atom looks just like a spiral galaxy. Maybe "fractal" is an excellent word to keep in mind when thinking of the universe.

How can an atom cast a shadow? Or are you drawing on 'shadow' as an abstract concept?

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


LINK

Funnily enough, the shadow looks a lot like a spiral galaxy. Maybe our galaxy isn't so big after all, maybe it's incredibly tiny compared to another level of reality.

What if parallel universes are only different levels of reality? Our Milky Way galaxy could be an atom in a parallel universe, and our atom could be a galaxy in another parallel universe. Mind blowing if you think about it, and entirely possible in my opinion

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


That's a ripple wave, not a spiral as far as I can see. Cool that we can finally make out the structure of an atom. Some impresive microscopes they have these days. Wonder where we'll be 100 years from now, technologically, if our civilisation doesn't cave in on itself, bringing us back to the usual neolithic 'beards and bats'.

Utnapisjtim
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

That's a ripple wave, not a spiral as far as I can see. Cool that we can finally make out the structure of an atom. Some impresive microscopes they have these days. Wonder where we'll be 100 years from now, technologically, if our civilisation doesn't cave in on itself, bringing us back to the usual neolithic 'beards and bats'.

I was going to say...I took it as a ripple as well. I scanned the article, albeit quickly, and didn't see anything declaring a shape to it.....merely remarking on the shadow in and of itself...

reply to post by Utnapisjtim


I see a spiral type formation myself, but I can also see a ripple too. If you look at the top and bottom of the shadow you can see what look like spiral arms fading out just like in a galaxy. To each his own though.

ETA: There's actually a thread on this that wasn't made too long ago.

LINK

The author of the thread even overlaid a picture of our galaxy onto the picture of the atom's shadow. Pretty convincing to me personally.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I see it like electrons moving along static ripple wavess around a compact nucleus (the dark spots in the middle), resembling Bohr's atomic model:



Compare with



You can see all all six shells and make out a nucleus, the evidence matches the theory. Like so many times before. Go science!