Is causality an inherent and necessary characteristic of the Universe, or just an illusion produced by the way our brains interpret the world?It's real, say physicists, who believe they have worked out how the Universe is constructed from the tiniest building-blocks of space-time. The finding could also help the development of a theory of quantum gravity, which would marry the two currently estranged physical theories of the Universe: quantum theory and relativity.
Quantum theory describes the Universe at the tiniest possible scale - about 10-35 metres (about 1020 times smaller than the radius of a proton). It predicts that on this scale the apparently smooth fabric of space and time must degenerate into a kind of 'foam' in which connections between different points are constantly appearing and vanishing.
Physicists have long been trying to figure out how the fuzzy nature of space-time at this tiny scale can give rise to the large four-dimensional Universe we see around us, as described by Einstein's theory of relativity.
Scientists studying the problem assume that each tiny piece of the foam is a kind of four-dimensional triangle, with three dimensions of space and one corresponding to time. The smooth fabric of space-time can be built up by gluing these triangular tiles together, just as a smoothly curved surface can be made from flat, two-dimensional tiles.
Because the quantum foam fluctuates through all kinds of configurations, constructing the physical Universe means adding up all the possible tiling patterns. You might think that this would inevitably generate a four-dimensional Universe - but it doesn't. Earlier researchers found that they got a space-time with either an infinite number of dimensions or just two. Neither of these looks at all like our Universe.
If you want to read the original article, you can view my copy here.
Very cool! Thanks.
Hal, I have read the following post of yours:
http://mr-fusion.hellblazer.com/000001.html
I'd like to point your attention to a very interesting museum piece:
http://www.widdershins.org/vol3iss7/i9805.htm
Also check out:
http://ugon.net/ipw-web/gallery/dodecahedron
That.
Is.
So.
Cool.
Hi there. Interesting to see how people come on this and that ( guess that includes me ).... Ive studied Buckminsters' works, for many years. I even work with nanostructures.
The druidic peices would "appear" to be similar, but I looked and the ones presented susequently, and yeah, I guess by the name of the website, I should "remember where I am." : ) But their stuff didnt quite "hit it"... no, stick with the 3/6/12 structure and you are only limited by your ability to shape and form things.
Best, Dave