Steven Hawking tells the story about a woman who interrupted a lecture about astronomy and says, "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The man giving the lecture smiles and replies, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," says the woman. "But it's turtles all the way down!"
What if it's "atoms all the way down"? What if galaxies are "atoms"? What if stars are "light," and dwarf galaxies are "neutrons"?
Galaxies form giant hexagonal grids that look like, in the words of astrophysicist Margaret Geller, "a slice of soap suds." Could this really be a "crystal lattice"?
The Milky Way and nearby Andromeda galaxy both contain around 14 "dwarf" galaxies. If dwarf galaxies are like "neutrons," then could we identify the "elements" of galaxies by counting their number of satellite dwarf galaxies? (Is the Milky Way an "atom" of Silicon? Are we living in a grain of sand?)
If galaxies are like "atoms," then there was never a Big Bang. But if stars are like "light," then the "wave" theory of light is incorrect. The Big Bang theory is completely based on the wave theory of light, or on the interpretation of redshift as the result of moving objects emitting light waves. If light is not in waves, then there is no evidence for the Big Bang. (Redshift could instead be caused by "dying light," or light may slowly "burn off" as it travels--just like stars are thought to eventually turn red and die.)
Atoms absorb light. Is that what galaxies are doing in black holes--absorbing stars?
Atoms produce light. Is that what happens in globular clusters--does the galaxy produce stars?
What if the color of a star is also a color of "light"? What if small red stars are red "light," and big blue stars are blue "light"? Could we decipher the "element" of a galaxy by charting the colors of its stars, like we determine the elements of atoms by looking at their spectral lines? Is this why the globular clusters in almost every known galaxy only contain red and green stars?
The first modern theory of the atom, Lord Kelvin's "vortex" theory, said that the atom is shaped like a vortex. Do galaxies have spirals because, like atoms, galaxies have the structure of a vortex? And if it's "atoms all the way down," does everything in the universe have the shape of a vortex?
Vortices share many properties of atoms, including mutual attraction (gravity); mutual repulsion; as well as the ability to merge, become unstable and split. Atoms are composed mainly of current (electrons), which has long been thought to essentially work like a fluid. If current works like a fluid, and the atom has the shape of a vortex, then the atom could be a vortex made up of "current." The atom's "mass" could correspond to the size of its vortex, and its charge could correspond to the speed of the fluid. Chemical bonds may occur when fluid passes through one atom and then into another.
If atoms have the shape of vortices, and "current" is the "fluid" that makes them up, then the galaxy must have "current" too. The galaxy must be a giant vortex made up of that "current." But where is that giant vortex, where is that fluid, and what is it made out of? Clearly, it is invisible--maybe too small to see. But if it's "atoms all the way down," there's one possible answer. The atom must have little "atoms," or "subatoms." What if the "current" in galaxies is made up of the next thing smaller than an atom - the "subatom"?
Just like stars are made of atoms, the atom's little "stars," or light, would be made of "subatoms." Light is a form of radiation. If stars are "light," then they are a form of radiation to the galaxy. Since atoms make up stars, then atoms are like "radiation" to a galaxy. If subatoms make up the atom's little "stars," then subatoms would make up atomic radiation (akin to "quanta").
If subatoms are also what makes up the "current" in a galaxy, then the galaxy is really a giant vortex made of atomic radiation. This may explain why we see enormous, vortex-like shapes that run through many galaxies but appear only in the radio spectrum, known as "relativistic jets."
Atoms can turn current into radiation ("spontaneous emission"), and radiation into current (the "photoelectric effect"). Applying the atomic principles of "spontaneous emission" and the "photoelectric effect" to galaxies gives us an answer to what may be the most important question in the universe--how are things created? If the galaxy's "radiation" is made up of atoms, and the "current" is made of "subatoms," then when the galaxy turns "current" into "radiation" ("spontaneous emission"), it turns "subatoms" into atoms. When the galaxy turns its "radiation" back into "current" (the "photoelectric effect"), then it turns atoms back into "subatoms." A universe of "atoms all the way down" is therefore like an Ouroboros (or a Phoenix, if you prefer) that is self-generating, and without beginning or end.
What if it's "atoms all the way down"? What if galaxies are "atoms"? What if stars are "light," and dwarf galaxies are "neutrons"?
Galaxies form giant hexagonal grids that look like, in the words of astrophysicist Margaret Geller, "a slice of soap suds." Could this really be a "crystal lattice"?
The Milky Way and nearby Andromeda galaxy both contain around 14 "dwarf" galaxies. If dwarf galaxies are like "neutrons," then could we identify the "elements" of galaxies by counting their number of satellite dwarf galaxies? (Is the Milky Way an "atom" of Silicon? Are we living in a grain of sand?)
If galaxies are like "atoms," then there was never a Big Bang. But if stars are like "light," then the "wave" theory of light is incorrect. The Big Bang theory is completely based on the wave theory of light, or on the interpretation of redshift as the result of moving objects emitting light waves. If light is not in waves, then there is no evidence for the Big Bang. (Redshift could instead be caused by "dying light," or light may slowly "burn off" as it travels--just like stars are thought to eventually turn red and die.)
Atoms absorb light. Is that what galaxies are doing in black holes--absorbing stars?
Atoms produce light. Is that what happens in globular clusters--does the galaxy produce stars?
What if the color of a star is also a color of "light"? What if small red stars are red "light," and big blue stars are blue "light"? Could we decipher the "element" of a galaxy by charting the colors of its stars, like we determine the elements of atoms by looking at their spectral lines? Is this why the globular clusters in almost every known galaxy only contain red and green stars?
The first modern theory of the atom, Lord Kelvin's "vortex" theory, said that the atom is shaped like a vortex. Do galaxies have spirals because, like atoms, galaxies have the structure of a vortex? And if it's "atoms all the way down," does everything in the universe have the shape of a vortex?
Vortices share many properties of atoms, including mutual attraction (gravity); mutual repulsion; as well as the ability to merge, become unstable and split. Atoms are composed mainly of current (electrons), which has long been thought to essentially work like a fluid. If current works like a fluid, and the atom has the shape of a vortex, then the atom could be a vortex made up of "current." The atom's "mass" could correspond to the size of its vortex, and its charge could correspond to the speed of the fluid. Chemical bonds may occur when fluid passes through one atom and then into another.
If atoms have the shape of vortices, and "current" is the "fluid" that makes them up, then the galaxy must have "current" too. The galaxy must be a giant vortex made up of that "current." But where is that giant vortex, where is that fluid, and what is it made out of? Clearly, it is invisible--maybe too small to see. But if it's "atoms all the way down," there's one possible answer. The atom must have little "atoms," or "subatoms." What if the "current" in galaxies is made up of the next thing smaller than an atom - the "subatom"?
Just like stars are made of atoms, the atom's little "stars," or light, would be made of "subatoms." Light is a form of radiation. If stars are "light," then they are a form of radiation to the galaxy. Since atoms make up stars, then atoms are like "radiation" to a galaxy. If subatoms make up the atom's little "stars," then subatoms would make up atomic radiation (akin to "quanta").
If subatoms are also what makes up the "current" in a galaxy, then the galaxy is really a giant vortex made of atomic radiation. This may explain why we see enormous, vortex-like shapes that run through many galaxies but appear only in the radio spectrum, known as "relativistic jets."
Atoms can turn current into radiation ("spontaneous emission"), and radiation into current (the "photoelectric effect"). Applying the atomic principles of "spontaneous emission" and the "photoelectric effect" to galaxies gives us an answer to what may be the most important question in the universe--how are things created? If the galaxy's "radiation" is made up of atoms, and the "current" is made of "subatoms," then when the galaxy turns "current" into "radiation" ("spontaneous emission"), it turns "subatoms" into atoms. When the galaxy turns its "radiation" back into "current" (the "photoelectric effect"), then it turns atoms back into "subatoms." A universe of "atoms all the way down" is therefore like an Ouroboros (or a Phoenix, if you prefer) that is self-generating, and without beginning or end.
Jack Wilenchik
wilenchik1@me.com
wilenchik1@me.com
