Does the F word rule the Universe?

[g__day (Matthew)]

Fractals! Stunningly good article in Australian Scientist last week. Basically seeing evidence the Universe is structured up to 200 million light years, whereas our current models show there should be no structures above 30 million light years under the bg bang model. Whilst we new galaxies where fractal and shape, and even clusters, it should go up to super clusters - ket alone strings of them.

A fractal universe is elegant, laws if physics become scale invariant, relativity becomes scale relativity, spacetime becomes fractal in and of itself, meaning its inifinite in scale density, as any fractal is. So the spec of dust in your hand is infinite - when everything is a fractal.

Finally it is a simple way to unite relativity with quantum mechanics (particals simply move along fractal paths). But it tears down Einstein's view that on a large scale the universe is homegenous at all levels.

Very interesting article that should be testable by mid 2008 with the next itteration of the Sloan study.

[xelasnave]

Thanks for providing a pointer to all of this Gday.
Is this it?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6466129.stm
I know it was named after Lee but how unfortunate to adopt "lie" to cover things .
History sees humans having different ideas about the Universe as time goes on and for this reason I suspect other ideas will replace Dr.A's in time, rightly or wrongly, that is not the point I observe, it is just history tells us that .

Being alive now and more advanced presumably than earlier humans we think we know most of it and that anything further will be but a mere further development and expalnation of what we already know and that simply what we currently know needs expanding not replacing .
Nothing I have read on all this today has sunk in really and the penny has not dropped for me... in other words where can I slot gravity rain in for the ride . But it seems to be somewhat along the lines of the comment I made that maybe the "squares"of space time just simply get smaller, and smaller without ever getting too small .
Thanks for posting Gday .
alex

[g__day (Matthew)]

New Scientist 10 March 2007 covered it as their cover page article, titled

Fractal Universe
Supergalaxies that are shaking cosmology

Don't mention the F word
If the universe is shaped like a fractal, it could overturn everything we thought we knew about cosmology. by Amanda Gefter pgs 30 - 33

To give you a feel for it it starts off...

Written across the sky is a secret, a hidden blueprint detailing the original design of the universe itself. The spread of matter throughtout space follows a pattern laid out at the beginning of time and scaled up to incredible proportions by nearly 14 billion years of cosmic expansion. Today that pattern is gradually being decoded by analysing maps of the distribution of the stars, and what has been uncovered could shake modern cosmology to its foundations.

Cosmology is founded on the assumption that when you look at the universe at the vastest scales, matter is spread more or less evenly throughout space. Cosmologists call this a "smooth" structure. But a small band of researchers, led by statsistical physicist Luciano Pietronero of the University of Rome and the Institute of Complex Systems, Italy argues that this assumption is at odds with what we can see. Instead they claim that the galaxies form a structure that isn't smooth at all: some parts of it have lots of matter, others don't, but the matter always falls into the same patterns, in large and small versions, at whatever scale you look. In other words, the universe is fractal.

It's beautifully written and profoundly insightful if correct. This could be the scientific find of the century - the first contender to re-write relativity and link it to quantum mechanics.

Google those names (or spend $7 and get the issue). Also look up French astrophysicist Laurent Nottale at Meudon Observatory in Paris (regarding scale relativity).

Excellent read!

[xelasnave]

Great stuff thank you very much Gday
alex

[xelasnave]

I have read the rest and more .
I think my ignorance of exactly what the current popular models limit clusters to has let me think on wider scales .

My difficulty with the big bang model apart from the concept of inflation (which I don’t buy but that does not mean that its wrong) was simply the infinite Universe verses a Universe floating in a sea of nothing problem .

I speculate that if not infinite the Universe must exist in a “sea” of nothing..(space is by any theory more than nothing so space even empty empty space is more than nothing). Can it be the Universe exists in a sea of nothing? or it is carried upon the back of a large turtle? swimming in a big ocean in a ????.

Well it cant be on the back of a turtle and it cant be in a sea of nothing
..the only alternative I can come up with is it must be infinite . As difficult as that concept is to imagine it beats the sea of nothing and even the giant turtle approach for me .

I could not imagine that nothing can exist and that its absence therefore points to an infinite Universe in the real sence .. not simply a human expression “of so big we call it infinite” ...infinite is so big (and presumably so small) that there can be no beginning no end no top no sides no roof no floor .. limitless in a way humans can not even get a grasp upon its “limitlessness”

So it would seem that if one was to presume this ( the Universe must be infinite) the prospect (big bang idea) that all could start at a point and somehow double up to become infinite is impossible … no matter how many times you double something it can never become infinite it will always be an increased percentage of something …
I doubt if such a proposition can even be grasped by humans.. I say it and think about it but truly I can not comprehend such must be so.

I was under the impression that the galaxy cluster Abel 2029 was some half a billion light years across and as big as that presents to a human mind (who can not in anyway comprehend the enormity) such a size is but a drop in the bucket..no indeed less than a drop in a bucket for it is a drop in a never ending Ocean.. never ending..an ocean that has no bottom in fact an ocean that takes all the sky as well .
Any attempt at quantifying the Universe by a humans size reference is meaningless against infinity... so it matters not I expect that the big bang idea comes up with a size of 30 billion light years across, or a trillion trillion trillion light years across..infinite is bigger than that .

I think the current theories (ideas surrounding big bang) at least as much as I can understand what they say, still work in a Universe that they think they can place a size upon.. which fails to recognize the concept of infinite.. you can not measure infinite. You can not halve infinite, you can not take away 99 % of infinite and be left with an amount which is somehow less than infinite.
Infinite has no “nothing”on the outside .

So in an infinite Universe one can only (at least the only way I can imagine it) have a proposition that even the largest structures we see are but parts of a yet larger structure which is indeed part of a larger structure still … and that structure within a structure within a structure may well go on “infinitely”…

Now that’s going outwards but why should it be any different going inwards which is really for me more difficult to conceive ..yet why should it not be that a hydrogen atom contains as much within it as we find when looking outward as it were .

I don’t fully understand the fractal proposition but it seems to be along these lines so how ever could we get our heads around that… and personally I feel it must be somehow this way but how could a human express this situation I don’t know but the fractal approach seems close to me .

alex

[xelasnave]

And of course the supply of gravity rain is infinite so we can throw out the dark matter.. and rely only upon "dark energy" to hold all together (er push it all together).
alex

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Alex, even if the Universe is Fractal it doesn’t mean it is infinitive. At least at macro scale. Area or volume of Fractal set is finite. But at micro scale it could contain (possibly) infinitive number of smaller universes, each the replica of our own Universe.
Infinite universe is a scary idea. If one accepts it one has to accept Multiverse.

[xelasnave]

Hi Karl.. those thoughts were with me before I understood that fractals even were on the table. The various propositions put simply for the Universe are all difficult to entertain. I certainly would prefer to be able to think the Universe is say (as I once thought from something I read) has an approximate size of 65 billion light years.. a humans brain can mange that even though it has absolutely no idea how big that is..infinite by any humans comprehension.. however the point comes where one can say well lets say it is 65 billion light years big, diameter and 13 .5 billion years old..at this point I find myself saying ..did we have "nothing" before and there are answers that can manage the age somewaht better than the next point..as big as it is being finite it must therefore exist in something..which we can only assess as nothing... nothing is my problem.. if you see what I mean..I can not envisage a sea of nothing it does not make sence to me.. do we get the the edge of our finite Universe where the earliest photon races before us into a void, into nothing thereby converting it to space... I draw a distinction as must be between nothing and empty space..I can accept empty space thats easy but to accept nothing that is another matter..my brain rejects the posibility.. that is all I am on about.. as hard as I find to accept that the Universe may be infinite find it just as difficult to accept we reach a fence line between space and nothing.. even if you call it empty space or nothing than ones mind, at least mine, then requires a boundary to be set for it.. and again we come up with infinite..
Going smaller is perhaps easier is some respects but wow which even one you go for it is difficult to imagine.
AND my curse is that so much of my time is bound up in this kind of thought.. its like the proverbial dog chasing its tail..or the chicken and the egg proposition...for me at least.
Even if we move to the multi Universe my mind drifts to well do they sit in a sae of nothing finally.. even string theory with trillions of Universes at their disposal if all laid end to end I still see a point where they will or will not end.
Sorry to be brief but I am expecting a visitor I dont want to get caught half way thru this..but now its complete although probably contains many an error try to read past them.
So I dont focus on one proposition or the other as either leaves a situation that a human mind can not manage I feel.
Best wishes
alex

[g__day (Matthew)]

Here's a novel thought experiment for you, distance isn't at all like we percieve it when you come to the underlying reality.

Hold that assumption and suddenly alot of angst goes away. But this is not more workable then saying we'll we are all just deluded but self aware sub-routines in some more advanced civilisations computers. You can't prove or disprove it. You can reason that one day with enough technological advancement that we might be able to easily create such an environment, which quickly bring you to the conclusion - hey that's what we are - someone beat us to it and the illusion is approaching self awareness.

But a fractal universe gives a model to theoretically describe, test for predictive power and test against the data. And under 18 months is a very short time in the world of modern science.

[xelasnave]

Gday I have considered the prospect that we are indeed a “virtual world” in another’s reality, I have considered all that is around me may be placed there simply so the higher intelligence can observe my reaction to situations, but happily I can conclude such thinking is delusional, irrespective of it being correct or not .

Many however fail to stop and consider their possible delusions and happily follow an idea and finally turn it into their reality. I regard all my views finally with high suspicion and that is why I will not let myself entertain any one possibility as having any greater virtue than another. (Even the gravity rain idea and this must surprise you sits in the same box )

The fractal Universe excites me as it must excite anyone who realizes that the current difficulties in reconciling various apparently sound theories in conflict so as the quest for understanding can continue.

Karl you point to the sums as in themselves limiting the Universe to finite which raises again in my mind well if finite do we swim in a sea of nothing. So the conflict remains .

In the days following my brush with death via the indirect hit by lightening I felt my brain had been treated similar to a defragementation operation on a computer. I certainly found a new understanding of the expression...my life flashes before me.., for indeed it did as it seemed that everything was presented to me in an instant... absolute silence yet ever sound I had ever heard somehow together ..Very confusing when one tried to make sense of it later. What was the reality of the event? Merely a flood of impressions caused by some current leaking through my body via the brain that all .

Yet so many folk I have related the experience to want to read all sorts of things into the event to suit their realities and beliefs... from being touched by God to aliens transferring knowledge to me .
I smile and agree with whoever simply as that is what they want to believe what’s the point trying to change peoples views as you can not win.(I have no converts to the gravity rain idea).. they will spend time (my time) seeking to use my experience to build their reality to suit them…not to make me seem special but to make them seem special...and I am not special.

The reality that is the most reasonable is that I was probably being held in a state of fearfulness, as the difference between being alive and dead was minor. The event simply caused me to think about everything and although the result saw me reading faster(because I began reading more I became more efficient that’s all) and thinking about matters that were to that point of less importance prior to the event (I would think more because I was reading more) I don’t attribute to the various explanations others wish to seize upon.
Delusion would then support my defragmentation idea (over their chosen explanations) if I let it whereas reality would have been more easy to attribute to fear of death . Probably more to the point I realized if I had not been dripping with water I may not have been hit but it seems that the fact I was dripping wet was the very thing that presumably saved me. giving the “current” an easy path to continue upon its way.
Maybe the higher intelligence had simply hit “reset” or maybe I was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time which is more acceptable to my human reasoning .

AND all such thinking tells me is that...delusion can be built upon a reasonable premise and can form part of a particular humans reality. One should be careful and take the time to question possibilities but be quick to step back to observe that perhaps reason has lead you up the garden path. I feel that reason has lead much popular thinking up the garden path in many areas but enjoy nevertheless considering the discoveries that unfold as a result.

My prime concern with the fractal approach is it will add fuel to the string proposition of the possibility of trillions of universes. which no doubt I reject but only because the prospect is so daunting. Something I noticed suggested, in the absence of further original thought, those involved in “string research” will happily line up to support the new idea.

So a new reality will be born I expect .

But my point is finally I am also very excited about the fact that we do not have to wait very long for it to unfold further and will follow its development with keen interest but unfortunately my math ability will always see me on the outside looking in .. but maybe that is a good thing for me .
Alex

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Alex, I don’t say that our Universe is finite, I say that if it is fractal it leads to conclusion it is finite in macro size. Regardless of how our Universe comes to existence, our (theoretically) observable universe (Hubble volume) is a sphere about 46.5 billion light years radius. Beyond that, until we discover something faster then speed of light, we cannot observe, just speculate. The Universe could be actually be smaller if the observed distant galaxies are in fact formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe.
I do not have a problem with concept of “nothing” as it is same problem as to accepting infinity. However, same as you, I find it impossible to visualise it. I would not call it “sea of nothing” as”nothing” can not have dimension. My concept of “nothing” is that it is the possibility for something to exist.

[xelasnave]

Gravity Rain tells me it can entertain as a large a structure as we can imagine and current ideas can not. The fractal Universe is the one to back. I am putting my reasons together but a pushing force can generate a fractal geometry where as if one includes a force of attraction I doubt it can. Sorry to be brief but working on another matter and will explain more a little later. But this is really exciting and shortley I hope to prove why.
alex

[xelasnave]

Originally Posted by Karls48

Alex, I don’t say that our Universe is finite, I say that if it is fractal it leads to conclusion it is finite in macro size. Regardless of how our Universe comes to existence, our (theoretically) observable universe (Hubble volume) is a sphere about 46.5 billion light years radius. Beyond that, until we discover something faster then speed of light, we cannot observe, just speculate. The Universe could be actually be smaller if the observed distant galaxies are in fact formed by light that has circumnavigated the universe.
I do not have a problem with concept of “nothing” as it is same problem as to accepting infinity. However, same as you, I find it impossible to visualise it. I would not call it “sea of nothing” as”nothing” can not have dimension. My concept of “nothing” is that it is the possibility for something to exist.

Karl I am sorry the last post I made was without seeing your post. I was in a heck of a rush with many ideas running wild in my mind on the implications of the fractal Universe approach and before I could organise them all I was needed for some advice that needs all my thought power .
You have expressed the point I try to make about nothing by observing it can have no dimention . In other words hop over the fence from our Universe into the nothing side and you cant go anywhere .

Nothing is a funny thing to consider I suppose but it is so very relevant I feel. I suppose others must have met this problem, barrier whatever ..and what a strain on the imagination all this does present..

I dont understand your last sentence however so I have to think more about that one particular aspect.

The real world has had hold of me and taken away my thoughts but I feel that the difference between the current dark cool /cold dark matter model and the fractal model enables me to perhaps show, with out sums unfortunately, with logic ( I know I know not more of my crazy logic) or with fair reason why larger structures can exist in a fractal Universe when the current model will never allow it... universal pressure I feel may yet have its day .

So I am like the rest ready to hop on the band wagon .

I cant disagree with anything you have out forward but in truth I have not thought much yet. I need some time to recover from the encounter with the real world. Thanks for your input and again I am sorry for missing your post when I was here earlier.
alex

[Karls48 (Karl)]

If the Gravity Rain propagate faster then speed of light, well that would be great discovery.

[xelasnave]

Karl I read someplace sums calculated the size and past our observable Universe at some 68 billion light years and someplace else 150 billion light years so there is a lot of room out there we can never never get close to what ever figure is correct, as the figures can only come from the sums not from observtion of specifics .
I realise we can never go past the boundaries of the Observable Universe and I like that as we are in my favorite area..speculation of the possibilities... rather than those tiresome details they call facts
alex

[xelasnave]

I have read and re read the fractal article and it seems to me Mr. Hogg may well have a problem ... anyone who says they will stake their scientific reputation on something being correct knows little of history which tells us many men have followed their reputations down the drain after such a statement .
It is the cry of someone who feels they are personally on trial for the matters they support and rather than being receptive to the consideration of evidence that they may have been working on a dead duck and bring out the old "I will stake my reputation on this” .
His rejection of the possibility says a great deal to me and I think we will see the day that we witness history repeat itself...maybe .

Not smart to paint yourself into a corner when there is no need to do so .
Mr. Hogg relies on everything fitting with his firmly established beliefs in the soundness of the big bang idea... an idea I predict may also go down the drain because of its need for inflation.
Even now there are moves to establish inflation as a fact seeking its evidence in the ashes of the big bang itself . Difficult but they are going to try.
However I cant stake my scientific reputation as I don’t have one … but I will bet $50-00 (once only) to the first person who calls me on this… I believe the data so far points more to fractal Universe than the “cold dark matter” model..

Space time is geometry finally irrespective of how mystical ones tries to make it sound and fractals is more advanced geometry I believe offering a greater complexity and relying upon seemingly valid interpretations of current data.. And soon it will have even more data at hand .
The background radiation map should have shown evidence of a fractal situation I would have thought ...yet it appears not to have if Mr Hogg is prepared to bet his life upon the outcome...yes his life for with reputation gone so is the life one enjoys that came with it .

I think the fractal approach allows for the “squares of the space time grid” to grow in fact smaller and smaller in a fashion I suggested elsewhere here . To my simple mind meaning that the two theories will find a convenient fit .
My ideas about gravity rain tell me that it can accommodate not only large structures such as Abel 2029 but fit them in with ease.

It makes no sense to believe galaxies need dark matter unless we must accommodate attraction...even space time makes no judgement necessary to require gravity attracts yet attraction seems to have crept into the problem which makes the problem more than what it is .. Where did the need for dark matter come from ? And once the idea was put forward dark matter could tidy up some other areas well maybe the tidy up was premature .
Consider a Universe (finite or infinite) for a moment where Gravity Rain or Universal pressure is the only force...no force of attraction in this one for a moment .
The gravity rain is simply all the particles of all objects traveling at the speed of light surely fractals fit with such a view from a shadow effect that gravity rain would provide .
Anyhow I will sleep on it as they say or even wait until it (the fractal Universe) becomes a fact as I bet it will become when the next data is looked at. And their findings will have to be rather conclusive as there will be many like Mr Hogg who will not want to see the idea get up .
Alex

[Karls48 (Karl)]

The edge of observable Universe is simply points where the galaxies recede from us at speed of light. The actual distance will depend on how accurately we can measure how fast are distant galaxies receding from us. With our current technology we cannot see that far anyhow.

[xelasnave]

Good morning Karl and good morning Gday.
if you read my last post relating to the absence of background radiation it says much about how I now regard the possibility of the fractal universe .
That does not mean I have thrown it out but the truth that has hit me as a result of investigations to find the source of the article re the absence of "shadows" tells me the fractal Universe needs more consideration and a context established to undersatnd what is really going on ..
No wonder I have to build my own Universe .
So I sit here this morning maybe a little wiser maybe not and even more suspicious of information than ever before .
alex

[xelasnave]

Karl and Gday good morning .
I suspect Mr Hogg may well have made his bet pledging his reputation from a frustration in the face of perhaps an unreasonable attack on the current model still dangerous to paint oneself into a corner but maybe he felt the opposition to the current model left him on safe ground ..needless to say I regard my attacks as reasonable but I now must question where did I start going over to a steady state proposition and was it really my idea .
It is clear to me that the truth, for me, is still a long way off .
I am not easily fooled I would like to think but that also may be a delussion as the shadow thing tells me I can be easily fooled ..
I dont want to be seen as coming from the camp who attacks the theory to suit the needs of their religious views and steady state I now see suits the needs of some religious views and they employ real scientists to provide plausible grounds to destroy something that may well deserve to be left in place.
What are your thoughts.
alex

[fringe_dweller]

I cant get this concept outta my head now - i am seeing a paisley universe in my head! this is so cool