Do you agree that the known universe could be described as a particle?

Posted by: reece

My argument: Spacetime is an absolute. Subtracting matter would make it anything but the known universe.

  • Yes, because...

  • No, because...

46% 6 votes
54% 7 votes
  • I believe that it is like a a particle because the universe could be like an atom that makes up organisms and objects. If this theory is true, I believe that we and everything around us is a universe.

  • The universe is expanding as shown by the hubble constant and the idea that as a galaxy is redshifted further, it is also further away, and moving faster than close objects. Therefore, it is foolish to think of an expanding euclidean space on a flat surface as a bound particle. While it is true that photons moving radially are considered not to have been through displacement, the majority of the universe undergoes a scaling factor that offsets this radial displacement.This is also unlike a particle with typical spin.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
reece says2016-02-26T01:55:43.9221488Z
@Renegader Abductive reasoning isn't the best form of logic. What do you mean by bound particle? Does particle have to be bound? Does a particle have to spin? Size doesn't matter outside spacetime.
Renegader says2016-02-26T02:02:42.8084892Z
I mean i could start putting proofs up here but I'm trying to keep this straightforward and with good reasoning. Anyways, if you know about quantum mechanical outcomes of spin, and specifically relating to elementary particles, you would understand what I meant. Also, outside of spacetime? Are you implying the expansion is into some null subspace outside of spacetime fabric? That is not quite the prevailing theory.
reece says2016-02-26T02:33:52.4676419Z
@Renegader I know, and that's great, i'm just saying you're trying to fined the most simplest answers (in the sense of not critically thinking... =/=) . I'm talking about the universe, not what it's made out of. Is salt a particle? If so, would we be talking about it's atomic structure? A particle is an absolute of something. I'm not saying expansion is null, i'm just saying when there's a lack of space, there's a lack of volume. Let's leave it at 4-5 sentences for each reply.
reece says2016-02-26T02:45:08.3887747Z
Its*
Adamboy123 says2016-05-14T21:25:27.2634407Z
The known universe is expanding on a flat space and according to the laws of euclidean geometry, it fits no description as a bound particle. If the universe was a particle, it would be closing in on itself and that brings us to a question; in the beginning it is said that so much energy, matter, space and time was compressed into a tiny volume how could that volume expand with the particle properties you assume it to contain?
Adamboy123 says2016-05-14T21:27:09.6156968Z
The known universe is expanding on a flat space and according to the laws of euclidean geometry, it fits no description as a bound particle. If the universe was a particle, it would be closing in on itself and that brings us to a question; in the beginning it is said that so much energy, matter, space and time was compressed into a tiny volume how could that volume expand with the particle properties you assume it to contain?
reece says2016-06-19T21:20:25.0392364Z
@Adamboy123 Obviously you didn't understand the description. How would the known universe be a "bound particle" if there was no matter Subtracted. Do you know what uni means? No, it's not an abbreviation.

Freebase Icon   Portions of this page are reproduced from or are modifications based on work created and shared by Google and used according to terms described in the Creative Commons 3.0 Attribution License.

By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.