Vertical Theory as a model for understanding infinity

[googillion]

Anyone heard of Vertical Theory as a model for understanding infinity?<br /><br />Vertical Theory provides a new model for infinity. At its simplest, Vertical Theory hypothesizes that in a multi-universe model, infinity stretches both up and down vertically from our universe. For this to work, the absolutely smallest indivisible unit or closed particle in the quantum world is a separate finite universe unto itself. There are a googillion of these units (could be some sort of sub-component of strings) and they serve as the first level building blocks for our universe. Next it states that our universe is one of a googillion other building block units for a universe much larger than ours, the next level up universe (not a mega universe because there is always a next level up). And so it goes, our universe a smallest component to a next larger universe, that universe a component to a next larger universe and so on infinitely. Alternately, the same model moves infinitely down to next smaller and next smaller universal building blocks. <br /><br />The result is a new Vertical model for seeing spatial infinite in the minds eye, admittedly unknowable and non-testworthy conjecture that probably belongs in philosophy discussion. Yet, I was wondering if others have heard of anything like this.<br /><br />Thanks for any insights.<br /><br />Steve Byrne

 

[kmarinas86]

Many people have had this idea, and it was even shown on the Simpsons!<br /><br />This kind of infinity can only be comprehenisble if it involves a repeating pattern such as:<br /><br />6 ...<br />1 Subatomic Particle<br />2 Atom<br />3 Planet<br />4 Star<br />5 Galaxy<br />6 Universe<br />1 ...<br /><br />or<br /><br />7 ...<br />1 Subatomic Particle<br />2 Atom<br />3 Being<br />4 Planet<br />5 Star<br />6 Galaxy<br />7 Universe<br />1 ...<br /><br />etc.<br /><br />If there was repeating pattern, all you would have to do is subject a subatomic particle to high enough energies so that it splits up into millions of pieces (or use very small devices (obviously not known to us right now) to attain very high resolution). Then you would have to figure out the integrity and shape of those pieces, etc.<br /><br />Only after that could such a theory become verifiable in a scientific sense, but the technology to peer into the atom is still in its infancy. <br /><br />If the universe was like this it would turn "reductionism" on its head. But if fact, it could be easier to conceptualise a unification of the fundamental forces in a fractal universe than it is with finite scale theories of the universe.

 

[kmarinas86]

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=sciastro&Number=435775&page=&view=&sb=&o=<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Ah. I see the problem. You're trying to express a difficult scientific concept as a metaphor. <br /><br />Ok, seriously. You have just said, by the strictures of good science and scientific terminology: <br /><br />The universe is an illusion (image) : one discreet portion of which is - well, might be, a force mediating gauge particle (which is part of QCD) that holds certain Quarks together, and expresses the color force. <br /><br />You then go on to explain how you believe that a Gluon is in reality (using the word variously) actually a discreet region where non-linear mathematics reign. And then explain that it is a region where the non-linear mathematical models therein are, in fact, regular. <br /><br />Only the very last makes any sense, since one mode of expression of non-linear mathematics - Chaos Theory, in short - is how chaotic systems work, and that there is actually a sort of regularity and order to the chaotic behavior. Another is the repeating Fractal patterns you find with Mandelbrot Sets. <br /><br />However, I suspect you didn't know most of that, and that you didn't quite mean what I just deconstructed for you. And so, in lieu of further explanation, the entire statement by you makes no sense. <br /><br />That's what he was politely trying to suggest to you</font>/safety_wrapper>