The universe acts like a crystal [1] because the observed universe is made of huge cosmic scale atoms, some seen as galaxies and galactic nuclei [2]. 1. http://www.cc.rochester.edu/College/RTC/Borge/aniso.html Indication of anisotropy in electromagnetic propagation over cosmological distances, by Borge Nodland and John P. Ralston, Physical Review Letters, Vol. 78, page 3043, April 1997. 2. http://www.world-mysteries.com/sci_10_eusa.htm There are galaxies, heavy elements and large-scale structures in the most distant accessible universe [3-9]. 3. http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/185qtocj.asp 4. http://www.astronomy.com/content/dynamic/articles/000/000/001/256sitgq.asp 5. http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/000/785llgvk.asp 6. http://hubble.gsfc.nasa.gov/survey/...desk/archive/releases/2004/07/text/index.html 7. http://au.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0311279 8. http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/topstory/2004/0107filament.html 9. http://www.astronomy.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/000/935khpwu.asp The cosmic microwave background shows large-scale patches [10,11]. 10. http://www.ras.org.uk/html/press/jod0402.html 11. http://users.indigo.net.au/don/links.html What else we do need change the space-time background in the current understanding?
Atoms and galaxies are, in many respects, very different. Galaxy dynamics are governed primarily by gravity; atomic dynamics are detemined in the main by quantum mechanics and the electromagnetic interaction. But, sure, you can draw some analogies between galaxies and crystals if you like. I don't see anything ground-breaking in that.
>> Atoms and galaxies are, in many respects, very different. Galaxy dynamics are governed primarily by gravity; atomic dynamics are detemined in the main by quantum mechanics and the electromagnetic interaction. LOL, easy to use different words to disguise a lack of understanding.. I agree Peter2003, the same principles and 'laws' exist and are operative everywhere.
It is just that Quantum mechanics is unimportant for galaxies and gravity is unimportant for atoms. New words for old stuff is not the same as new physics.
>> It is just that Quantum mechanics is unimportant for galaxies and gravity is unimportant for atoms. New words for old stuff is not the same as new physics. I disagree. >> I can explain for you if you ask nicely Hi James R, can you explain what you mean, please Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! >> so we have a different atomic dynamic.....when considering the universe this way It is all the same dynamic,........ "gravity" as such does not exist as it is presently defined by Newton or infered by GR, IMO
Zarkov: People often think of atoms as like miniature solar systems, with electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. That is not the picture of the atom that quantum mechanics gives us. Electrons do not have well-defined orbits around atomic nuclei. Instead, their positions are only specified by a probability distribution, derived from the Schrodinger equation. The same cannot be said for planets (at least, the uncertainty in the positions of planets is so small as to be completely negligible). Does that help?
>> People often think of atoms as like miniature solar systems, with electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets orbit the sun. That is not the picture of the atom that quantum mechanics gives us. Electrons do not have well-defined orbits around atomic nuclei. Instead, their positions are only specified by a probability distribution, derived from the Schrodinger equation. Quantumised distribution.... >> The same cannot be said for planets (at least, the uncertainty in the positions of planets is so small as to be completely negligible) I understand from my calculations that the positions of the planets are quantumised as well, they exist in a strict relation to the centre of spin, and they maintain this relation as they spiral out from the centre of spin. Why do you think electrons spin around the nucleus ? where does this energy come from..... vorticle energy, is the only energy that is self sustaining, IMO >> Does that help? No Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Zarkov now that we are pushing the boudary a little I have often considered gravity in the form of a spiraling vortex.......of space time. Not disimilar to that described by a tornado. Conceptualy this can be shown in the shapes of some galaxies etc. I have in the past argued that the coriolis effect also demonstrates a tendancy for spiraling gravitational effects. How ever current thinking is exclusively Conservation of Angular momentum (COAM) I think but I would argue that they are one and the same just seen from a different POV. COAM and spiralling space time co-exist as the same thing.
we must remember also that electron activity is dependent on the substance it is a part of and this could also be said for the composite of planets and star. Afterall a planet like earth consist of more than one element....yes? Where as an atom is essentially elemental.......I think....
Good thoughts Quantum Quark. There is certainly more to all of this than is known. >> Zarkov now that we are pushing the boudary a little I have often considered gravity in the form of a spiraling vortex....... I agree gravity lines to the centre are spiral, double helix. Falling water shows this... and rising charged plasma... The two foci are magnetic and electric >> of space time. Time is our construct, has nothing to do with the structure of reality >> Not disimilar to that described by a tornado. Yes certainly, these are caused by ionospheric disturbance, causing differential spin of the Earth's spin field, IMO.... much as the Sun's field causes differential spin of the Earth's field. >> Afterall a planet like earth consist of more than one element....yes? perspective of size [ Where as an atom is essentially elemental.......I think....] The Universe can be spherically dimensioned in SIZE, ie there are layers [up and down] that beyond which we are unable to resolve. These can be considered as quantum levels. So up a quantum level is the light sphere, beyond which we will never be able to see. Down, there is the atomic level, beyond which we may never see. There would be many such layers, presumedly infinite [or circular] with no end. We are where we are.... ???? It is curious that in magnitude these levels [up and down] are equivalent, ie we can look out as far as we can look down. Remember that our understanding is based upon mental models which as history has shown are not likely to be the last word, so to push the limits is a necessity in science. Don't let others tell you otherwise. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
>>Time is our construct, has nothing to do with the structure of reality. Zarkov, you are quite right. The structure of reality appears in our minds as space, time and bodies. We describe the interactions between the bodies at the scales of the process of observation. We describe what we observe in the classical and quantum theories. Then some people take these theories and their objects that so called four fundamental interactions for reality. These SEEN AS BASIC interactions are simply how we describe what we see. The observations will find a simpler explanation based on the revealed structure of reality. If you can see colliding stellar systems with time resolution not of 1/10 sec but 1/1000 years, then you will describe their interaction in the laws of quantum mechanics.
