The REALLY Big Picture

[the_prodigy]

Is it possible that superclusters of galaxies may form some sort of hyperstructure analogous to the relationship between particles in an atom?<br /><br />If so, given our relative spatial and temporal infinitesimalitude, is it even possible for us to observe structure at such a profoundly large scale, and if so, how? In other words... is humanity's collective retina anywhere near as wide as it needs to be to even begin seeing The Really Big Picture? At what scale does it simply become impossible for us to discern organised structure?

 

[pyoko]

The known Universes' structure has already been documented and seen 'by our collective retina'. It bears no similarities to the structure of an atom.<br /><br />You can see it here. <br /><br />If, however, you were looking for Miss Universe, you can see her right here.<br /><br />By the way, what on earth is infinitesimalitude? I looked and looked, but I could not find. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color:#ff9900" class="Apple-style-span">-pyoko</span> <span style="color:#333333" class="Apple-style-span">the</span> <span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span">duck </span></p><p><span style="color:#339966" class="Apple-style-span"><span style="color:#808080;font-style:italic" class="Apple-style-span">It is by will alone I set my mind in motion.</span></span></p> </div>

 

[the_prodigy]

That's not the Universe. That's not even the 'observable' Universe. It's not the same thing. It's VERY far from the same thing. Hate to break it to you, but that's not even anywhere near a complete representation of the observable Universe. Most current estimates place the current diameter of the 'known Universe' (as you put it) at 93 billion light-years at the very least. The dimensions of the picture you referenced is 300 million light-years across. I'm sure you have enough mathematical training to know the difference between 0.3 and 93. Also, in order for the Big Bang Theory to be true, the Universe has to be much larger than anything we've observed thus far. It's kindergarten cosmology.<br /><br />The particle analogy was precisely that, an analogy for simplicity's sake. Just like the old model of the atom was once described to schoolchildren as a tiny Solar System... even though most qualified physics teachers at the time knew that there was very little physical similarity between the two. Nowhere did I state that the Universe was structured like an atom. I put forward the possibility that superclusters may form hyperstructures ANALAGOUS to the RELATIONSHIP between particles in an atom. I assumed that would be understood to mean superclusters, filaments, Great Walls etc. interact on a very large scale, just as elementary particles interact on a very small scale. I was going to use an 'atoms in a molecule' model, but found the self-contained atom analogy more elegant and appropriate with the causally-connected bubble of the pocket of the Universe in which we live.<br /><br />As for "infinitesimalitude", it's a neologism of my own creation. In the past, I've also coined words like "entreprenaut' and 'tetragynous" for use on this site; most here are familiar enough with the principles of English word formation not to question words that obviously mean what they look like they mean. Maybe you'd have preferred if I used infinitesimalness, but I find it cumbersome and u

 

[alokmohan]

Image:RiyoMori.jpg<br />From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<br />Jump to: navigation, search<br />Image File history File links <br /><br />No higher resolution available.<br />RiyoMori.jpg‎ (150 × 174 pixels, file size: 24 KB, MIME type: image/jpeg)<br /> This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. The description on its description page there is shown below. <br />Commons is a freely licensed media file repository. You can help. <br /><br /><br />[edit] Summary<br />Description w:Riyo <br /> Here is the link of pyoko<br />

 

[the_prodigy]

With that said, the 'Medium Picture' you linked is a great visualisation of the Universe at filamentary scale... but given that it only shows less than one-half of one percent of the total observable Universe, I wonder what this view would coalesce into a few hundred million light years further out; right now it's like studying a sponge at high magnification under a microscope. Looking at it, one can't help but get this sense of far greater underlying structure... I'm sure others get the same feeling too.<br /><br />Why is it that superclusters organise themselves into filaments, sheets, and Great Walls? I know that gravitational attraction between galaxy groups and clusters has much to do with their formation, but why does it seem to work in only one and two dimensions (in the case of filaments and sheets respectively) at large scales? It seems counterintuitive somehow...<br /><br />(Offtopic: By the way, Riyo Mori's pretty cute, but this year I was rooting for our own beautiful Miss Jamaica all the way; she was the first Rastafarian and also the first woman with dreadlocks ever to represent any nation at a major international beauty pageant.)

 

[michaelmozina]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Is it possible that superclusters of galaxies may form some sort of hyperstructure analogous to the relationship between particles in an atom?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />If that is possible, then it would take the form of moving formations of galaxies, much like an atom is composed of smaller particles. Our technology however is rather limited. I double we'd ever be able to observe *all* of it however.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If so, given our relative spatial and temporal infinitesimalitude, is it even possible for us to observe structure at such a profoundly large scale, and if so, how? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, I sort of doubt we're anywhere near that level of advanced technological sophistication, and I'm not even sure it's technically possible to observe photons from every physical structure in the "big picture". General relativity would suggest that this is very unlikely in fact.<br /><br />The best we might hope for in the foreseeable future is the James Webb telescope, along with advancements in ground based technologies.<br /><br />http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In other words... is humanity's collective retina anywhere near as wide as it needs to be to even begin seeing The Really Big Picture? At what scale does it simply become impossible for us to discern organised structure?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The issue becomes a matter of whether you could expect to see photons from every possible structure that makes up the "big picture". Technically speaking, general relativity makes that unlikely. Light can only travel so fast, and relative our particular movements here on earth, some elements in a co-moving multiverse might be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to our movement. If for instance one element was movi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[the_prodigy]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The best we might hope for in the foreseeable future is the James Webb telescope, along with advancements in ground based technologies. <br /><br /><hr /></p></blockquote>>http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/<p><hr /><br /><br />I'm really looking forward to this... by the way, is this the same as the Next Generation Space Telescope that was slated to replace the Hubble?<br /><br />I'm also eager to see the development of plans for an observatory on the far side of the moon... it's currently the best place in the Universe for human civilisation to place a radio telescope without risk of any interference from Earth-based signals.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The issue becomes a matter of whether you could expect to see photons from every possible structure that makes up the "big picture". Technically speaking, general relativity makes that unlikely. Light can only travel so fast, and relative our particular movements here on earth, some elements in a co-moving multiverse might be traveling faster than the speed of light relative to our movement. If for instance one element was moving in direction along the x-axis at 7/10ths the light speed, and another was moving in exactly the opposite direction at 6/10ths of the speed of light, photons from one physical element might never reach the physical structures of the other.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Understood... though I've heard theories that the actual Universe may actually be smaller than the observable Universe. According to these, most of the furthest galaxies we see are actually 'reflections' of nearby galaxies formed by light that has already traversed the entire curvature of the Universe and is now approaching from the opposite direction (kinda like a line being drawn around the circumference of an expanding balloon). These theories would seem to imply that the rate of expa</p>

 

[dragon04]

If anything, I think a more correct analogy would be that superclusters of galaxies are more like molecules of like atoms.<br /><br />Like buckeyballs or molecular oxygen, for example.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[schmack]

you're saying that our galaxy, or the local cluster of glaxies could make up a single atom or molecule that together make up some kind of giant shoe? or a stapler (ok or maybe a rock) in a much larger universe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4" color="#ff0000"><font size="2">Assumption is the mother of all stuff ups</font> </font></p><p><font size="4" color="#ff0000">Gimme some Schmack Schmack!</font></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

No schmack, what he's saying is that his analogy treats the Local Group as the components of an atom. That neutron, proton and electron stuff.<br /><br />And what I was saying is that if you want to make analogies, the galaxies themselves would be the discrete atoms that interact like a molecule.<br /><br />If you take gravitational attraction and expansion out of the mix, that is.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Most likely we are watching one DNA structure, sitting on the top an electron (as particle) in an oxygen atom belonging to the structure. The collective galaxy structures may be a DNA-like structure. <br /><br />Human ego gives us the false importance (thank or blame it on evolution) but in reality we are totally insignificant in the bigger picture. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Now we're just getting siilly here, aren't we? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nimbus]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Human ego gives us the false importance (thank or blame it on evolution) but in reality we are totally insignificant in the bigger picture.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Anthropomorphism, right there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Of course I was being silly here. HAHAHAHA. May be a wishful thinking. But I didn't mean a biological DNA structure. A structure of inorganic materials that may serve the same purpose in their inorganic world as our DNA does in us. <br />Visually some small scale structures and large scale structures are interestingly close.<br /><br />Anthropomorphism??? hhhhmmm, I don't think we understand inanimate matters very well yet. We humans like to think 'we are bigger than the universe' - our minds are amazing things, aren't they?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[the_prodigy]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>No schmack, what he's saying is that his analogy treats the Local Group as the components of an atom. That neutron, proton and electron stuff.<br /><br />And what I was saying is that if you want to make analogies, the galaxies themselves would be the discrete atoms that interact like a molecule.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right, that was the analogy I was originally going to use, (except substitute superclusters for galaxies) but thought that would imply that superclusters themselves are self-contained.

 

[the_prodigy]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>you're saying that our galaxy, or the local cluster of glaxies could make up a single atom or molecule that together make up some kind of giant shoe? or a stapler (ok or maybe a rock) in a much larger universe?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Nope, I wasn't even including anything as trivially small (in the grand scheme) as a galaxy group in the analogy, much less one piddling little galaxy. Superclusters are much much much larger structures than our own little Local Group. Consider the staggering size of our own Solar System. Consider that our Solar System itself is a very tiny part of just one spiral arm of our mind-numbingly large Milky Way. Then consider that the Milky Way is just one of about thirty equally unfathomably large galaxies in the Local Group, and that the Local Group itself is just 1% of the 100 groups and clusters that make up the Virgo Supercluster. THEN consider that the Virgo Supercluster is believed to be one of ten million similar such superclusters in the observable Universe. Now consider that pyoko's Medium Picture doesn't even show the Virgo Supercluster in its entirety, and that larger-scale filamentary structure is already beginning to resolve in that miniscule little thumbnail, and you'll get an idea of what I mean.<br /><br />... and everybody knows that altogether it makes up one hair of Chuck Norris' beard.

 

[dragon04]

I won't argue that even our Solar System doesn't <b>loosely</b> approximate the accepted structure of an individual atom, but to me, that's where the association ends.<br /><br />Individual atoms bond (or do not bond) on chemical as opposed to gravitational principles.<br /><br />If we use gravity as the principal actor in the behavior of a cluster of galaxies compared to the structure of an atom, then it's comparing apples to oranges.<br /><br />It's also an inaccurate comparison using a molecule as an analogy. Chemical and gravitational "bonding" occur on two dissimilar and discrete levels.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[the_prodigy]

Let's get off the atomic/molecular model, as some seem to be only looking at it literally... what I was proposing was that superclusters, filaments, Great Walls and the like may form hyperstructures, and that, as emperor_of_localgroup suggested, these hyperstructures may have a <b>functional</b> property beyond anything we can imagine, <b>analogous</b> to elementary particles or atoms in a molecule. As for the comparison between gravity and chemical forces being apples and oranges, that's precisely what GUTs are intended to disprove. Most physicists today believe that gravity, the electroweak force and the strong force are simply different aspects of the same fundamental interaction. And who's to tell in what unpredicted ways gravity acts in the big picture; we still haven't even adequately solved Newton's three-body problem. It may very well be that gravity acts extremely similarly to electromagnetic and nuclear forces on a large scale.

 

[dragon04]

You want to "get off the "model", but.....<br /><br /><font color="yellow">these hyperstructures may have a functional property beyond anything we can imagine, analogous to elementary particles or atoms in a molecule.</font><br /><br />If we get off the model, how can we support your argument that hyperstructures exhibit functional properties of the models that you want to "get off of"? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[dragon04]

You're asking us to discount the inconsistencies of the "model" you chose, and at the same time ask us to accept that very model to fit your hypothesis.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[the_prodigy]

Functional properties <b>analogous to</b>, NOT functional properties <b>of</b>.<br /><br />a·nal·o·gous /əˈnæləgəs/ [uh-nal-uh-guhs]<br />–adjective<br />1. having analogy; corresponding in some particular: A brain and a computer are analogous.<br /><br />Analogous as in "superclusters, analogous to elementary particles or ions in electrovalent molecules, may have 'charges' and attract and bond with or repel each other according to certain undiscovered properties of the GUT. Hyperstructures formed by the interaction of these forces, just like atoms and molecules formed by the nuclear and chemical interactions of their constituent parts, may possess some sort of emergent functional property." Not analogous as in "superclusters are electrons and atoms and display the same properties and act in exactly the same way".<br /><br />Analogous as in "the Universe is analogous to the curved surface of an enormous rubber balloon". Not analogous as in "if you puncture the Universe air will escape".