Name the theory: 'large scale structures behave the same from the top down'

[human_extinction]

There is a commonly cited hypothesis - with no evidence as far as I know - that large scale structures in the universe (like galaxies) may be just "atoms" that make up "another universe" and so on... Does this theory have a name? While I can't think of much evidence for it - I don't have any great evidence against it.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

The Matryoshka Doll Theory?

[Cisco]

Oh, I know exactly what you mean, but it's one of those things where I could've thought of it if only you didn't ask me. I thought of it independently in elementary school when I saw the Bohr model of the atom, but I learned much later that it isn't an accurate representation of what an atom really looks like. That's probably why you don't see much credence given to this.

On Preview: I seem to recall someone referring to it - in the other direction (micro as opposed to macro) - as a theory of subatomic galaxies, or maybe elemental galaxies.

[qubed]

The Men in Black Theory?

[IAmNotSpartacus]

Originally Posted by Kimmy_Gibbler

The Matryoshka Doll Theory?

Is this an actual theory?

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by IAmNotSpartacus

Is this an actual theory?

Sure, why the hell not?

[Wendell Wagner]

It's more like an offhand idea than a theory. It's the sort of throwaway notion that anyone might come up with on the spur of the moment. (I remember when I was a kid that I and my brother came up with the idea when hearing of the Bohr model of the atom.) As has been pointed out already, the Bohr model hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. One of the first mentions of this concept in print is in the short story "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse. In the movie Animal House the characters discuss this idea while sitting around smoking dope. That's about the level of this speculation.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

It's more like an offhand idea than a theory. It's the sort of throwaway notion that anyone might come up with on the spur of the moment. (I remember when I was a kid that I and my brother came up with the idea when hearing of the Bohr model of the atom.) As has been pointed out already, the Bohr model hasn't been taken seriously for a long time. One of the first mentions of this concept in print is in the short story "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse. In the movie Animal House the characters discuss this idea while sitting around smoking dope. That's about the level of this speculation.

I was totes going to bring up Animal House and smoking grass with the professor in response to the "Is it an actual theory?" question (lolwut?).

But then I couldn't remember if it was in Animal House or some other movie I saw on USA Up All Night like 17 years ago.

[Santo Rugger]

Horton Hears a Who?

[human_extinction]

I guess to rephrase: Do you know of any scientists that have actually supported this notion? What is the earliest historical record of this hypothesis?

[Sage Rat]

The closest I can think of is the notion in Fractal Theory that there tends to be a similarity of features at different levels of zoom in the natural world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractal_theory#In_nature

[Wendell Wagner]

As I said, the earliest mention of it in print that I know is "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41331

I was about to say that no scientist would ever mention it even halfway seriously in print, but that's not true. In his book Cosmos, Carl Sagan mentions this idea. Not surprisingly, Sagan smoked a lot of dope:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

[DSeid]

Several streams of thought that it comes from I think.

The first is as already mentioned - Chaos Theory (fractals) demonstrates that massive nonlinear systems (those often best described by the tools of Chaos Theory) tend to have some approximation of self-similarity at different scales of analysis.

The other comes from "Systems Theory" which posits that similar tools of analysis can be applied to systems of vastly different scales.

Last is of course the basic tool of creative thought itself - analogy-making. Not quite a theory but the reason that we look for "fits" at different scales and different domains and thereby often have bolts of inspiration.

[MikeS]

Originally Posted by Sage Rat

The closest I can think of is the notion in Fractal Theory that there tends to be a similarity of features at different levels of zoom in the natural world.

The specific name for this notion is self-similarity.

[Meurglys]

I think Rudy Rucker called something similar 'circular scale' in his book Spacetime Do-Nuts.
In it the heroes got into a 'shrinking machine' and eventually became so small they emerged at the other end of the scale as immensly huge and had to continue shrinking to achieve normal size!

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

As I said, the earliest mention of it in print that I know is "He Who Shrank" by Henry Hasse:

http://www.isfdb.org/cgi-bin/title.cgi?41331

It's a great story by the way - I read it about 30 years ago in Asimov's collection "Before the Golden Age".

At one point a few years back there was discussion of a fractal structure in the distribution of galaxies, clusters of galaxies and clusters of clusters, but that's not really the same thing.

[Wendell Wagner]

Let's make this quite clear: Fractals are not examples of the subatomic universe theories, nor are they proofs that subatomic universes exist. Fractals are a set of theoretical mathematical objects. No exact model of them could be built in our universe. (A picture showing what they look like at one level of detail is not an exact model.) The reason that no exact model could be built is that that are limits on the smallness of any details in our universe because the smallest particles in our universe are a given size. The fact that there is fractal structure for a few levels in some objects in our universe doesn't mean that those object are fractals. It just means that it's possible to find self-similarity for a very limited set of levels. Self-similarity always breaks down in our universe when you look at too small a view or too large a view.

The use of subatomic universes in science fiction novels and stories like Rucker's and Hasse's is only possible because the novels assume that the structure of the universe is completely different from what present-day science knows about it. The only way to justify them as speculation is to assume that our present-day knowledge about atoms and particles is completely wrong. The speculations in Animal House and Cosmos about subatomic universes also contradicts known science.

[Andy L]

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

Let's make this quite clear: Fractals are not examples of the subatomic universe theories, nor are they proofs that subatomic universes exist. Fractals are a set of theoretical mathematical objects. No exact model of them could be built in our universe. (A picture showing what they look like at one level of detail is not an exact model.) The reason that no exact model could be built is that that are limits on the smallness of any details in our universe because the smallest particles in our universe are a given size. The fact that there is fractal structure for a few levels in some objects in our universe doesn't mean that those object are fractals. It just means that it's possible to find self-similarity for a very limited set of levels. Self-similarity always breaks down in our universe when you look at too small a view or too large a view.

Absolutely true - I hope you don't think I was suggesting otherwise. Things that look fractal on the human scale (like ferns), fail as fractals long before you get to the atomic level, in fact, since plants are made of cells of fairly fixed size.

Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner

The use of subatomic universes in science fiction novels and stories like Rucker's and Hasse's is only possible because the novels assume that the structure of the universe is completely different from what present-day science knows about it. The only way to justify them as speculation is to assume that our present-day knowledge about atoms and particles is completely wrong. The speculations in Animal House and Cosmos about subatomic universes also contradicts known science.

Hasse probably didn't know better, and Rucker's got his tongue in cheek, but I don't know what Sagan was thinking (unless your suggestion above is correct)

[Wendell Wagner]

I knew you understood that fractals weren't a proof or an example of subatomic universes, Andy. I wasn't entirely sure about some of the other posters though.

[jackdavinci]

You might try macrocosm and microcosm or holons.