I just finished watching something on TV which got me to thinking. Now, I'm no physicist by any stretch so I obviously am missing some important data here..but I'll throw this out anyway; Say you take a rock, I could start with anything, but a rock will do. You crush that rock into pieces..then crush those pieces into smaller and smaller pieces, over and over again until you're crushing the particles; the molecules, atoms, all the tiny particles that make up the atom...you just keep crushing into the smallest 'last' particle that's left. You crush until your magic hammer has nothing left to crush. Until there's no evidence that any rock or anything at all ever existed. No mass or no energy is in evidence. None-zip-nada. Then you turn around and get into your space ship which can travel faster than light squared (for sake of argument only) You travel out of the solar system and galaxy in a flash..past millions of other galaxies...past millions of galactic clusters..making your way with the universal inflation heading to the very edge of the universe into the vast nothingness that the universe is expanding into.. Then, you stop at the very edge, staring directly into that nothingness, just as you previously stared into the nothingness at the furthest edge of the microcosm that once was a rock. Are they the same place? Can you go to the extreme into the macrocosm and the microcosm to get to the same place?
I'm pretty sure what you are thinking about is the fundamental connection between the very small and the very big. To answer what I think you are saying is, yes, the microcosm is intimately related to the macrocosm. If we take a look at the FWLR equations which govern the macrocosm and numerous observations from Hubble, WMAP, etc which support the FLWR universe we can see the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), the blueprint of the early universe. Furthermore, Hubble observed a Cosmological Redshift z for nearly every galaxy in the observable universe. This "z" value represents an increase of wavelength for electromagnetic energy traveling towards us which indicates that galaxies are receding from us. Interestingly enough the largest z value for the most distant galaxy 7 which corresponds to a universe receding from us at ~.969c. It is conclusive that the universe is expanding and will continue to expand forever. (unless magic happens) So, what we can do is rewind the clock to 10^-43s (Planck Time) the earliest time we can indirectly observe of the universe. Likewise at this time a was very very small; a represents the expansion of the universe not its size. Contrary to popular belief the universe wasn't contained in a single point it was infinite but with no space inbetween every point (I know it's a mindful) At such a the volume of "stuff" in the universe was indeed very very small where quantum mechanics rule, and thus the very large is very much so connected to the very small.
I actually have an exam tomorrow morning on all this (General Relativity) lol. So feel free to ask as many questions, it's a form of studying.
I think so too. Is the fact that you crushed the rock necessary for your argument or did you just want us to consider only its smallest components? I ask because there are implications of smashing it apart, and yanking molecules and atoms apart doesn't just happen like disassembling a jigsaw puzzle - all kinds of energy is involved, for example. If I understand you I think using the very small as a model for the very large (or vice versa) only works as a metaphor, and then only so far. The Bohr model of the atom, essentially a mini-solar system, wasn't useful for very long and doesn't address much that came after quantum mechanics was discovered, for example. Going backwards in time, per Anarcho-Technocrat, seems like it might be a more fruitful approach but it's beyond my pay grade. I'm interested in seeing where this conversation goes - you're the second person I've seen ask this question in about as many weeks.
Crushing the rock was sort of...metaphoric. Used to illustrate breaking matter down to it's progressivly smaller parts and particles. Didn't work for you. huh?
No, I totally got you. I was concerned maybe I didn't but I think I did, and as I said others are probably better positioned than I am to provide insight.
