Fractal Universe

[xelasnave]

The discussion elsewhere has had me looking at everything I can find on fractals... one of those things you have no idea as to how many facets until you do some research...mmm information can be sort of fractal

I came across a vid on utube with Carl Sagen which presents a confronting proposition that our Universe may be only an elementary particle in a much larger Universe and that larger Universe again only an elementary particle in a yet larger Universe...and so on...

I am sure if I suggested such it would not fly but the fact that Carl suggested it makes me wonder if such an idea has developed over the years.

here is the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4Gak-F2e4U

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

That's an old idea, even older than Sagan's espousing of it. It's very much like the old Chinese "turtle on a turtle on a turtle" cosmology. Much like those Russian dolls, one within another within another. It's actually rather funny, you know. You then have to wonder just where our "elementary particle" of an Universe is located in the larger scheme of things. I mean, are we part of some person's finger or the tip of their tongue?? Are we a part of some thrown away piece of paper or scrap food?? And are they, in turn, a part of something even larger still....like a cooked lobster meal on a gigantic dinner plate or a pile of pond scum??

I mean, we might just be what's being flushed down a gigantic toilet....that would explain a lot of things

[xelasnave]

Looking at the world at the moment Carl I think I can suggest exactly what we are probably in...
Certainly when you seek to suggest the Universe is infinite the implication is a russian doll setup like Carl Sagen speculated upon.

alex

[renormalised (Carl)]

Some gigantic you, right at this very minute, might be typing out exactly the same words you have typed in this thread

Ad infinitum........

[xelasnave]

I think life was easier when one never thought about such things.
Still we are blessed that we can.
I fundamentally did not like the big bang theory because it required accepting concepts seemingly beyond belief and yet if we seek an alternative infinite Universe the propositions that unfold are even more dificult to imagine... but in that infinite/fractal universe I could accept the monkeys typing the works of Shakspeare easier than the prospect of larger and larger editions of me typing away...mmm it is all too much.

Still the realities of fractal structures so widespread raises a question I cant even propose other than...why is it so?

alex

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by xelasnave

Still the realities of fractal structures so widespread raises a question I cant even propose other than...why is it so?

Because fractals are the hallmark of chaotic processes. There is overwhelming evidence of fractals remaining from those processes.
The old idea of the purity of a single deterministic equation describing complex physical processes resulting in the structures evident in our universe is, and always was, a pure pipe-dream.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Because fractals are the hallmark of chaotic processes. There is overwhelming evidence of fractals remaining from those processes.
The old idea of the purity of a single deterministic equation describing complex physical processes resulting in the structures evident in our universe is, and always was, a pure pipe-dream.

Cheers

But that's precisely what they expect to do with chaos and fractals. Develop a broad, overriding equation that through its application can define any natural (or unnatural) system you care to apply it to. That's what self similarity is all about. Scale invariance. Which means it applies in all cases. If a single deterministic equation is a pipe dream, then so it is such with chaos as well.

[CraigS]

Here ya go Carl … this IS an aspect worthy of consideration … this being because fractality may exist right down to the quantum level, and up to the opposite end of the scale. Almost no other theory or perspective bridges that scale expanse whilst displaying consistency.

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale

As if extra dimensions weren’t strange enough, new research has probed an even more mind-bending possibility: that spacetime has dimensions that change depending on the scale, and the dimensions could have fractal properties on small scales. In a recent study, Dario Benedetti, a physicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, has investigated two possible examples of spacetime with scale-dependent dimensions deviating from classical values at short scales. More than being just an interesting idea, this phenomenon might provide insight into a quantum theory of relativity, which also has been suggested to have scale-dependent dimensions. Benedetti’s study is published in a recent issue of Physical Review Letters.
…
In his study, Benedetti explains that a spacetime with quantum group symmetry has in general a scale-dependent dimension. Unlike classical groups, which act on commutative spaces, quantum groups act on nocommutative spaces (e.g. where xy doesn’t equal yx), which emerges through their unique curvature and quantum uncertainty. Here, Benedetti considers two types of spacetime with quantum group symmetry - a quantum sphere and k-Minkowski spacetime - and calculates their dimensions. In both spaces, the dimensions have fractal properties at small scales, and only reach classical values at large scales.
…
Benedetti’s results match previous approaches to quantum gravity, which also point to the emergence of a ground-scale spacetime with fractal properties. Together, these studies may help scientists understand the unique Planck scale properties of spacetime, and possibly tie in to a quantum theory of gravity. For instance, as Benedetti explains, the fractal nature of quantum spacetime might enable gravity to cure its own ultraviolet behavior by dimensional reduction.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Scientists discover quantum fingerprints of chaos

Chaotic behavior is the rule, not the exception, in the world we experience through our senses, the world governed by the laws of classical physics.
..
Even tiny, easily overlooked events can completely change the behavior of a complex system, to the point where there is no apparent order to most natural systems we deal with in everyday life.
…
Scientists who study "chaos" - which they define as extreme sensitivity to infinitesimally small tweaks in the initial conditions - have observed this kind of behavior only in the deterministic world described by classical physics.

Note: Chaotic behaviours are displayed in classical deterministic systems now they're chasing evidence of chaos in quantum systems …

If the starting point for a quantum particle cannot be precisely known, then there is no way to construct a theory that is sensitive to initial conditions in the way of classical chaos.
Yet quantum mechanics is the most complete theory of the physical world, and therefore should be able to account for all naturally occurring phenomena.
"The problem is that people don't see [classical] chaos in quantum systems," said Professor Poul Jessen of the University of Arizona. "And we believe quantum mechanics is the fundamental theory, the theory that describes everything, and that we should be able to understand how classical physics follows as a limiting case of quantum physics."

EXPERIMENTS REVEAL CLASSICAL CHAOS IN QUANTUM WORLD
Now, however, Jessen and his group in UA's College of Optical Sciences have performed a series of experiments that show just how classical chaos spills over into the quantum world.
…
The scientists report their research in the Oct. 8 issue of the journal Nature in an article titled, "Quantum signatures of chaos in a kicked top."
Their experiments show clear fingerprints of classical-world chaos in a quantum system designed to mimic a textbook example of chaos known as the "kicked top."
…
One of the most dramatic quantum signatures the team saw in their experiments was directly visible in their images: They saw that the quantum spinning top observes the same boundaries between stability and chaos that characterize the motion of the classical spinning top. That is, both quantum and classical systems were dynamically stable in the same areas, and dynamically erratic outside those areas.

They go on to say they've revealed the signature of chaos which is related to entanglement …

A NEW SIGNATURE OF CHAOS CALLED 'ENTANGLEMENT'
…
In Jessen's experiment, the electron and nuclear spins remained unentangled as a result of stable quantum dynamics, but rapidly became entangled if the dynamics were chaotic.

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Here ya go Carl … this IS an aspect worthy of consideration … this being because fractality may exist right down to the quantum level, and up to the opposite end of the scale. Almost no other theory or perspective bridges that scale expanse whilst displaying consistency.

Spacetime May Have Fractal Properties on a Quantum Scale



Cheers

I'm pretty certain it does, but it has to be proven, still. There's a possibility for bridging the disparity between gravity and QM....figure out a fractalised, deterministic chaos version of both that allows one to seamlessly fit into the other....a law of fractal quantum gravity

[renormalised (Carl)]

Scientists discover quantum fingerprints of chaos

Now, they'll have to repeat these experiments in order to falsify them. The fat lady hasn't sung quite yet

[ed9428 (Kris)]

If our universe is just a particle in a much larger universe, and that universe part of another much larger universe. Are there smaller universes that make up us, or are we the bottom of the barrel? Or are we part of a bottom of a barrel, a very deep infinate barrel of barrels?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by ed9428

If our universe is just a particle in a much larger universe, and that universe part of another much larger universe. Are there smaller universes that make up us, or are we the bottom of the barrel? Or are we part of a bottom of a barrel, a very deep infinate barrel of barrels?

Possibly. There'd be no reason for there not to be. We might not be at or near the bottom of the barrel or a barrel, but we're most likely a barrel of Vat 69

[avandonk]

An essential part of fractals and chaos is feedback while following a simple reiterative rule to generate the time dependant order.

In quantum mechanics there can be no feedback as how does the system get feed back from an indeterminate state. Quantum entanglement can be the ONLY form of feedback at the quantum level!

Simple really I think?!!!

Bert

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by avandonk

An essential part of fractals and chaos is feedback while following a simple reiterative rule to generate the time dependant order.

In quantum mechanics there can be no feedback as how does the system get feed back from an indeterminate state. Quantum entanglement can be the ONLY form of feedback at the quantum level!

Simple really I think?!!!

Bert

Yes but feedback would come from a determinate state and it becomes a determinate state at the point it can provide feedback.
or at least that is what the garbo told me
alex

[CraigS]

In these experiments, the fractal shows up in the phase space maps for different induced 'kick strengths', which is related to the decoherence rate, (or degree of entanglement), as the transition from quantum to classical behaviours occurs.

A quantum mechanical system can still be viewed as interacting with the surrounding environment via entanglement, and can be shown to be sensitive to the degree of externally imposed changes.

The feedback mechanism occurs during the transition.

Interesting stuff.

Cheers

[middy]

Originally Posted by renormalised

That's an old idea, even older than Sagan's espousing of it. It's very much like the old Chinese "turtle on a turtle on a turtle" cosmology. Much like those Russian dolls, one within another within another. It's actually rather funny, you know. You then have to wonder just where our "elementary particle" of an Universe is located in the larger scheme of things. I mean, are we part of some person's finger or the tip of their tongue?? Are we a part of some thrown away piece of paper or scrap food?? And are they, in turn, a part of something even larger still....like a cooked lobster meal on a gigantic dinner plate or a pile of pond scum??

I mean, we might just be what's being flushed down a gigantic toilet....that would explain a lot of things

I often like to think that the galaxies themselves are the atoms or molecules in a bigger universe. Given that our view of the galaxies around us is that they moving away and our local universe is expanding, maybe we are part of some explosive process in the bigger universe.

Now imagine if our galaxy 'atom' was part of some solid structure in the bigger universe. We would be surrounded a regular lattice of other galaxy 'atoms'.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Given that our view of the galaxies around us is that they moving away and our local universe is expanding, maybe we are part of some explosive process in the bigger universe.

Someone lit the fuse to our celestial dynamite stick

[sally1jack (Phil)]

Originally Posted by middy

Now imagine if our galaxy 'atom' was part of some solid structure in the bigger universe. We would be surrounded a regular lattice of other galaxy 'atoms'.

Yeah i have thought of that as well , but imagine if that solid structure was also apart of a another solid structure & so on, i feel that i can get my head around this when associated with the idea of an infinite universe as apposed to an infinite single universe,
just something i had thought about
phil