Is the Electric Universe a Fractal Too? Signs Point to Yes!

[MGmirkin]

Wouldn't a fractal universe also imply that elementary particles do not exist or exist on every level?
I don't see a Periodic Table of the Stars.

Well, the periodic table is the periodic table. IE, if you have a set number of protons and neutrons in a nucleus with a set number of electrons in orbit, it's the same particle regardless whether you place it here, on the other end of the universe, or in a star.

Thus far, the "fractal" idea has only been mentioned with relation to the distribution or clumpiness of matter in he articles I've read. I don't know whether they have tried to apply the idea to the microscopic realm, so much as they've been researching the macrocosmic realm. But I don't see why the fractal nature wouldn't extend down to the level of microscopic stuff in the presence of currents, etc. Keeping in minds that the fractal nature of the cosmos is generally filamentary, the plasma cosmology / EU tends toward the notion that those filaments are electrically / magnetically structured plasma. On our level, much of what we see is "neutral," relatively cold non-plasma. IE, recombined elementary particles where the electro- part of EM has been locally canceled out. Atoms have more or less the proper / equal amounts of charge carriers clumped together to keep much of the interesting electric stuff from going on. So, I'd say that where we look at electrical interactions in the lab on the micro scale I'd think there would certainly be self-similar processes to those we see in space. Or vice versa, electrical stuff we see in the lab is applicable, via scaling, to what we see in space. That's a good part of the basis of plasma cosmology, insofar as I understand it. Of course that's just me.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[MGmirkin]

[*]finite and unbounded
The universe is a plasmalamp without edges, travel far enough you're back where you started.

That one really doesn't make conceptual sense to me either. Unless one's considering something like walking along the surface of a beach ball, or the Earth. But, does that make sense in 3 dimensions rather than 2? I'm not really sure how that would work. Can't visualize it. IE, walking from the "left" side of a galaxy toward the right, and somehow ending up back at the left side. Somehow seems "wrong." Or at least not what one generally experiences...

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

Dimensionality of Space
In a closed group of operators, like [1 i j k], the result of the combination of any number of the basal elements is also a member of the same group. The result of any such combination can be known only if all the possible binary combinations of the elements are first defined in terms of the basal elements i, j and k themselves (besides, of course, the identity operator, 1). Let there be n basal elements (excluding the unit operator 1) in a group. Then the number of unique binary combinations of these elements, in which no element occurs twice, is n(n-1)/2. We can readily see that a group becomes self-sufficient (finite) only if the number of binary combinations of the basal elements is equal to the number of those basal elements themselves, that is

n(n-1)/2 = n.

The only definite solution for n is 3. (Zero and infinity are other solutions.) Therefore if we regard space (time) as a group of orthogonal rotations, its dimensionality has to be three in order to make it self-sufficient dimensionally. Otherwise the number of dimensions either has to shrink to zero, or proliferate to infinity.

[folaht]

Whoops!

Drat, call me stupid. I thought unbounded was the same as borderless .
Sorry, I'm just a layman. I googled for infinite bounded and found the wrong explanation.

Yes, they contradict eachother. Thanks for pointing that out.

[MGmirkin]

Whoops!

Drat, call me stupid. I thought unbounded was the same as borderless .
Sorry, I'm just a layman. I googled for infinite bounded and found the wrong explanation.

Yes, they contradict each other. Thanks for pointing that out.

Erm, wait, okay, now I'm getting confused again. I would also tend to think that unbounded would equate somewhat to borderless. IE, no boundary or "end." Though, I don't see a quote, so I'm not sure which of my two comments you were referring to the "infinite" / "bounded" paradox or the "finite" / "unbounded" wrap-around solution?

Anywho... Time to rest the brain.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[folaht]

Erm, wait, okay, now I'm getting confused again. I would also tend to think that unbounded would equate somewhat to borderless. IE, no boundary or "end." Though, I don't see a quote, so I'm not sure which of my two comments you were referring to the "infinite" / "bounded" paradox or the "finite" / "unbounded" wrap-around solution?

Anywho... Time to rest the brain.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

I never thought this place would be so lively so I was surprised to see three extra posts .

I was talking about the infinite bounded paradox, which can only be done with an infinite set of bounded spaces.... not very ilkely.
Anyway..


about the finite / unbounded universe...
I know it's hard to visualize, I always think of this old computer game, only in 3D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om0O1Iyhd8c

[MGmirkin]

Starcon 2! Yeah, I remember that, I think. What ever happened to that? That was a fun game! Hours of mindless entertainment!

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[bdw000]

There are about 6 options of how the universe I could think of and these are:

[*]infinite and bounded
The universe is a plasmalamp shaped like an inifinitely long neon-tube, depending on which direction you'll travel, go far enough and you'll bump against the edge and still get a nasty headache

Isn't that one contradictory? How can a system be both infinite and bounded.

If there's a boundary, it's not infinite. It's, well, bounded. There is an "end." It stops and doesn't go on forever.

Or is there some way in which something infinite can be bounded but still infinite. Seems like a violation of infinity to me, to put a limit on it. Just my 2c.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

From a purely mathematical viewpoint, I think they do claim that you can have an infinitely long circumference surrounding a finite area (which may or may not be what you guys are talking about). Since the "circumference" is a fractal (keeps on repeating no matter how small you get) the claim is that it is infinitely long.

Personally I do not think this proves anything about the real world. Though I am not a mathematician or scientist.

[StevenO]

Isn't that one contradictory? How can a system be both infinite and bounded.

If there's a boundary, it's not infinite. It's, well, bounded. There is an "end." It stops and doesn't go on forever.

Or is there some way in which something infinite can be bounded but still infinite. Seems like a violation of infinity to me, to put a limit on it. Just my 2c.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

Compare it to a Mobius ring, no difference between inside and outside. The inside of our atoms is actually the outside of our universe.

[Antone]

Isn't that one contradictory? How can a system be both infinite and bounded.

If there's a boundary, it's not infinite. It's, well, bounded. There is an "end." It stops and doesn't go on forever.

Or is there some way in which something infinite can be bounded but still infinite. Seems like a violation of infinity to me, to put a limit on it.

Good point.

However, I might point out that infinity generally seems to have at least two directions.

For example, time is a two-ended infinity. Infinite past and infinite future, separated by the now (which is infinitely small). If time came to an end. The infinite past would still be infinite.

Similarly, infinity of numbers are multi-sided. Even without the negative numbers, there is infinite magnituded and infinite smallness, (which is, more or less, just another way of saying infinite precision).

Therefore, the [infinite nature of the Electric Universe] can theoretically be bounded on one side or the other and still be infinite--because there is infinite largeness and infinite smallness.

I'm pretty sure that wasn't the original intent of [infinite and bouded]... but perhaps worth noting.

[Antone]

• fractal
  Same but also for zooming in ad inifinitum.

I think many of us are missing something important here.

A fractal does not need to have the same form at different levels. I think it is reasonably safe to suggest that no two clouds are exactly the same, yet each cloud is fractal in nature, because it looks very similar at various magnifications. We see the same thing with a coast line.

Even when a fractal does contain identical replications imbedded within itself, it is often the case (as we see with the gingerbread man, that there are numberous layers inbetween where the fractal looks nothing at all alike.

As Stephen Wolfram (in his book A New Kind of Science) demonstrates, even fractals that are designed from the simplest of rules can create rather chaotic fractals.

The point then, is that even if the universe is fractal--of which I have no doubt at all--the structues do not need to be identical at the various levels.

Maybe I'm reading the wrong stuff ,and yes I know one should not be too stuck up on words, but would it be "like a fractal" or have the "likeness of a fractal"?

No, I think the accurate way to say it is that it would "be a fractal" or it would have a "fractal nature".

A child is a "youth". They are not "like a youth". Nor do they have the "likeness of youth". They ARE "a youth", because they are [an example of what it means to be a youth]. A child can have that disease where they age prematurely--and then they might have the "likeness of age", but they are still a "youth".

[Antone]

Compare it to a Mobius ring, no difference between inside and outside. The inside of our atoms is actually the outside of our universe.

Interesting suggestion, but I'm not sure a Mobius strip qualifies as an infinitum...

If you are walking on the strip, you can travel forever--so in this sense, it is without end. But the area that the strip covers is definitely finite. It is a good example of something that is infinite in one way and finite in another.
However, the way in which it is infinite, it is not bounded. The Mobius strip is basically a twisted circle; and a geometric circle is infinite because it has no apparent beginning and no apparent end--or in other words, no way to designate a non-arbitrary boundary.

There is a way in which the Mobius strip is bounded, however, and in this way it is not infinite. For if we pick any arbitrary starting point on a circle, then the circle has both a beginning and an end. If we are measuring actual physical qualities, such as distance, area, etc. then the circle is both bounded and finite.

[MGmirkin]

As Stephen Wolfram (in his book A New Kind of Science) demonstrates, even fractals that are designed from the simplest of rules can create rather chaotic fractals.

The point then, is that even if the universe is fractal--of which I have no doubt at all--the structures do not need to be identical at the various levels.

An interesting point to make. Thank you.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

[StevenO]

As Stephen Wolfram (in his book A New Kind of Science) demonstrates, even fractals that are designed from the simplest of rules can create rather chaotic fractals.

The point then, is that even if the universe is fractal--of which I have no doubt at all--the structures do not need to be identical at the various levels.

An interesting point to make. Thank you.

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin

About the fractal shape of the universe, I know it follows this form:

1. The universe is point symmetrical
2. Then you will find a point symmetrical "Kleins bottle" shape, which might look like
a) a cardoid (Einstein 'spacetime')
b) a line
c) a Ying/Yang shape
depending on the angle that you look at it.
3. This shape gets divided and repeated at by a factor 2n^2
4. Until you reach the size of an electron

This will also show that Einstein's SR formula needs a correction term that will resolve it's apparent paradoxes. This might also explain "the pioneer anomaly".

For evidence see here:
http://space.newscientist.com/article/d ... ad_dn14098

(COBE Dipole: Speeding Through the Universe)
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030209.html

Credit: DMR, COBE, NASA, Four-Year Sky Map

Explanation: Our Earth is not at rest. The Earth moves around the Sun. The Sun orbits the center of the Milky Way Galaxy. The Milky Way Galaxy orbits in the Local Group of Galaxies. The Local Group falls toward the Virgo Cluster of Galaxies. But these speeds are less than the speed that all of these objects together move relative to the cosmic microwave background (CMB). In the above all-sky map, radiation in the Earth's direction of motion appears blueshifted and hence hotter, while radiation on the opposite side of the sky is redshifted and colder. The map indicates that the Local Group moves at about 600 kilometers per second relative to this primordial radiation. This high speed was initially unexpected and its magnitude is still unexplained. Why are we moving so fast? What is out there?

(Emphasis at the end was mine.)

I just noticed this image as I was looking for other things. As I looked at it, a surprising feature kind of jumped out at me. Is it just me, or is there a "bar" to this spiral? If so, what is the significance of that bar? Can this be equated to "barred spirals?"

Keeping in mind that redshift may not be a reliable indicator of velocity and/or whether things are currently approaching / receding, if Arp is correct.

What am I getting at? I'm not quite sure. Trying to tease something out of the data, I guess. I recall having read an article by plasma physicist Peratt a while back with respect to spiral galaxies in a plasma universe. I'm not sure which of his prolific papers it came out of particularly. But one of them specifically discussed spirals: normal versus barred, and even went so far as to try to pin down a reason for the "bar." IE, there was some kind of interaction between the Birkeland currents or interacting charge clouds wherein under some circumstances, they would interact across the gap between them. I just don't recall the specific circumstances. Perhaps someone can refresh me?

I thought it was one of these two, but didn't see it on first glimpse through?

http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... 6TPS-I.pdf
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloadsC ... TPS-II.pdf

In any event, that paper (which ever it was that I read) was what got my knickers in a twist over this image. That faint bar seen between the leading edges of the opposing parts of the spiral form. Maybe I'm reading too much in? Maybe not.

Cheers,
~Michael Gmirkin

[webolife]

Can't help inserting my two cents here. Had two bits a while back, then a plug nickel, but here goes:
The universe is indeed fractal in nature, because the geometry by which it operates is scaleless... I say "scaleless", Wal, et.al., uses the term "scalability", but both signify that the same ratios/constants apply from the atomic domain to the galactic, and every scale in between. While this is not the exact definiton of "fractal", it is most certainly a primary fractal characteristic. In another recent post, I proposed that the universe has itself the characteristic of a punctual field, ie. a locus of a unified field, just as is an atom. While I know it irks most EU folk, it is quite clear to me that the universe is indeed finite.