So far, I’ve been painting the mix of essential elements that make up the observable Universe with a pretty broad brush. Large densities (like stars, quasars, or black/grey holes) have been described as “random” mixes of individual essential elements of different distributions and sizes. In a way that’s true – according to CEC, the whole Universe is a mosaic of elements flowing from high density states to low density states and collecting together in like distribution (due to cohesion) over time – and in another way it’s a gross oversimplification. Sometimes we have to simplify things to adequately describe them – at least at first.
The reality of the Universe, I believe, is that essential elements are organized into a series of density structures, smaller within larger, in a progression of scale, so to speak. The beauty of this hierarchy is that very similar structures and processes can be imagined at each level of scale. As within, so without.
The basic structure that occurs at several scales is best pictured as that of a planetary system. A number of smaller densities (planets, comets, etc.) are held in orbit at varying distances by cohesion/gravity to a central relatively large and dense core (star). Most of the overall system is dominated by ultra-low density elements in which everything else “swims”. For the most part, the system, though in motion, is in a stable state – occasionally disturbed by either minor or massive forces that cause expulsion, attraction, or addition of new objects.
This artist’s concept illustrates a young, red dwarf star surrounded by three planets.
[Image: Wikimedia Commons]
The first step down in scale from a planetary system could be thought of as a planet itself. Many planets are orbited by one or more smaller natural satellites (moons) or rings (Saturn). Earth is also orbited by man-made satellites and other space junk.
The next step down in scale would be an atom. Atoms have smaller objects (electrons) orbiting at varying distances around a more dense core (nucleus). Once again, much of an atom can be thought of as “empty space”, filled with low-density essential elements.
A sodium atom with 11 electrons orbiting a central nucleus at three separate distances.
[Image: Wikimedia Commons]
One the one side, the wavelike nature of essence entering the Space states might describe mini-Universes that exist within a larger super-Universe – and these mini-Universes might behave in similar, orbital ways. (More on mini-Universes in a future post.)
On the other, smaller side, because essential elements are so relatively tiny, they might go into making up what are currently quantified as quantum elements. These quanta might themselves follow an orbital paradigm.
In current thinking, there are many who believe that structures and processes do not operate the same on the “large” and “small” scales. Max Planck theorized that there are values above which one set of rules can be applied and below which another set must be applied. These are called the Planck Scale and have different values when speaking about time, mass, or length. From Wikipedia:
In particle physics and physical cosmology, the Planck scale (named after Max Planck) is an energy scale around 1.22 × 1019 GeV (which corresponds by the mass–energy equivalence to the Planck mass 2.17645 × 10−8 kg) at which quantum effects of gravity become strong. At this scale, present descriptions and theories of sub-atomic particle interactions in terms of quantum field theory break down and become inadequate, due to the impact of the apparent non-renormalizability of gravity within current theories.
I’d like to leave as an open question at this point, whether the CEC model can encompass scales beyond the Planck scale within a single description.
How can we draw further possible connections between the processes that happen on different scales? There are many, many parallels that could be drawn, but I’m going to focus on just one for this post – the parallel between collisions between galaxies and chemical reactions between atoms/molecules.
In a simple exothermic reaction, two molecules collide, producing different combinations of their atoms (i.e., different molecules) plus the release of extra energy. For example, the burning of hydrogen:
- 2H2 (g) + O2 (g) → 2H2O (g)
- ΔH = −483.6 kJ/mol of O2
could be thought of as a collision between a galactic group with four hydrogen galaxies and a galactic group with two oxygen galaxies. After the collision, there are two similar galactic groups each consisting of one oxygen galaxy and two hydrogen galaxies. In the process of the collision and re-ordering of the galactic groups, a certain amount of energy (in this case, in the form of heat) is released.
Similarly, the process of radioactive decay can be imagined as a massive expulsion from an unstable galaxy, while the process of nuclear fission can be thought of as a small, dense core being shot into an unstable galactic core, causing the galaxy to be split into two, smaller galaxies (and the release of energy and additional small, dense cores).
An induced fission reaction, resulting in lighter elements, three free neutrons, and gamma rays.
[Image: Wikimedia Commons]
One other things that needs to be thought about is how a process, like expulsion, would take place across scales. For example, if a massive density (like our Sun) contains atoms of hydrogen and helium, how exactly do individual essential elements get expelled as light? Do the get expelled from the atomic level first and then travel outwards as single elements? Do they move from atom to atom on their way out, each with its own expulsion characteristics? How does all this impact the more general formulas that represent expulsion?
All fascinating questions for another day.
Filed under: Predictions and Tests, The Model Tagged: atoms, fission, galactic groups, galaxies, molecules, planetary systems, planets, radioactive decay, reactions, scale
