Radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry?

In summary, the conversation discusses the concept of looking outward and inward, and the convergence of phenomena at an equilibrium point. It also touches on the idea that larger scale structures may be a projection of ancient small scale processes and the question of where this convergence occurs. The conversation also mentions the role of humans as observers in this middle ground between the macroscopic and microscopic.
  • #1
Loren Booda
3,125
4
Starting at the microscopic entities we observe in our immediate neighborhood outward, then tracing mass-energy evolution from the universal horizon inward, can we determine where processes of both coincide in intermediate space?

Our own Planck regions, quarks, protons, atoms, planets, stars and galaxies span away from our world. Likewise, we theorize or even witness the creation of these bodies in reversed order from the region of the background radiation.

Is there a distance or cosmological redshift for the symmetry that balances these physics? Is there also an explanation that the remote big bang, influenced by the local isometric geometry of expansion, manifests centrally as inhomogeneities?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
  • #2
Greetings Loren !
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Starting at the microscopic entities we
observe in our immediate neighborhood outward,
then tracing mass-energy evolution from the
universal horizon inward, can we determine
where processes of both coincide in
intermediate space?

I have no idea what you mean (maybe that's
why I'm the only one answering :wink:).
I do not see the distinction you appear to
indicate.

How about this thought :
According to current physics I believe you
might say that everything becomes more of
a blur as it is further away from us in time
and space. We can think of ourselves as
our own candles in (an infinite ?) darkness.

Very poetic of me, but completely useless...

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #3
Looking outward in many ways is equivalent to looking inward. The entities, particles and energy we experience on smaller and smaller scales, say from hydrogen atom to nucleon to quark, are similar in their exploration by both accelerator and telescope. I am trying to say that there is an equilibrium point where, starting from both observer and deep field, and extrapolating from quark to nucleon to atom to planet to star to galaxy to intergalactic space, these phenomena converge.

It is hard to imagine that what we consider to be the larger scale structures actually are a projection of ancient small scale processes. For instance, would your call the cosmic background radiation an artifact of the macroscopic or microscopic? Is not the initial singularity now spread across the sky? Therefore, what is the middlemost ground?
 
  • #4
Greetings !

I'm sorry, but I still do not understand what
you mean by "the middlemost ground" ?

We have symmetry for space-time in GR and
symmetries for the other forces in QM,
are you referring to their points of
disagreement (doesn't look like that, but
I don't get it) ?

Live long and prosper.
 
  • #5
Take physics at local radius r-->0. This physics is the same as that observed relatively to global radius R-->Rhorizon. Increase the local radius measured to rn=10-13 cm, then observe nucleons correspondent to nucleon production at a relative global distance Rn just within Rhorizon. Increase the local radius measured to rH=10-8 cm, then observe hydrogen correspondent to hydrogen production at a global distance RH<Rn<Rhorizon.

Our Sun is observed to have a local radius of rS=7 x 1010 cm, our Galaxy of rG=7 x 1022 cm, and clusters of up to rc=1025 cm. Reciprocally, the relative scale of initial entity creation follows globally inward from the horizon: stars are formed, then galaxies, then clusters, where Rclusters<Rgalaxies<Rstars<RH<Rn, but rclusters>rgalaxies>rstars>rH>rn.

My question for the equilbrium between local measurement and global production might be phrased "Where is rx first equal to Rx, and for what x?"
 
  • #6
Originally posted by Loren Booda
Looking outward in many ways is equivalent to looking inward. The entities, particles and energy we experience on smaller and smaller scales, say from hydrogen atom to nucleon to quark, are similar in their exploration by both accelerator and telescope. I am trying to say that there is an equilibrium point where, starting from both observer and deep field, and extrapolating from quark to nucleon to atom to planet to star to galaxy to intergalactic space, these phenomena converge.

It is hard to imagine that what we consider to be the larger scale structures actually are a projection of ancient small scale processes. For instance, would your call the cosmic background radiation an artifact of the macroscopic or microscopic? Is not the initial singularity now spread across the sky? Therefore, what is the middlemost ground?

We are. We (humans) stand in the middle between the macroscopic large and the microscopic small.
 
  • #7
Originally posted by heusdens
We are. We (humans) stand in the
middle between the macroscopic large and the
microscopic small.
Oh really ? Maybe it's something bigger,
like our egos...
 
  • #8
heusdens-

Please refer to my previous posts. Did I ever ask
what stands in the middle between the macroscopic large and the microscopic small
?
 
  • #9
Actually, I'm STILL not certain what you're
asking. :frown:
 

1. What is the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry?

The radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry (also known as the Hubble radius) is the distance at which the expansion of the universe causes objects to recede from each other at the speed of light. This distance is currently estimated to be about 14 billion light years.

2. How is the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry calculated?

The radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry is calculated using the Hubble constant, which is a measure of the rate at which the universe is expanding. It is also affected by the density of matter and energy in the universe.

3. What is the significance of the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry?

The radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry is significant because it marks the limit of the observable universe. Beyond this distance, objects are moving away from us faster than the speed of light and their light cannot reach us, making them unobservable.

4. How does the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry relate to the Big Bang theory?

The Big Bang theory states that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since. The radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry is a key component of this theory, as it represents the point where the expansion began.

5. Is the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry constant?

No, the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry is not constant. It has changed over time as the universe has expanded. In fact, the rate of expansion is currently accelerating, which means that the radius of cosmological mass-energy symmetry is increasing at an ever faster rate.

Similar threads

  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
13
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • Cosmology
Replies
25
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
19
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top