Einstein’s relativity theories may be close to understanding the vastness of the universe. And they indelibly connect time to the “size” we seek. I believe time is a theoretical universal constant, but the elusive meter-needle nature of the Universe points not to changing or bending time, but organically-embodied “traits,” rhythm and balance, energetic systems that extend through nature and should be called-out in the study of Everything. Rhythm and balance are as important parts of the equation as time itself.
Size, in universal terms, can only be measured by grouping distance with speed; in other words, the time it would take, at a certain speed, to “get to” the distances we are trying to understand, and sometimes the imagined possibility of doing so, if the distance is great. The universe and atomic world have to be in both contexts (time/distance) at every moment of dissection, a subspecific way to examine any topic scientifically.
It wouldn’t be hard to conclude after a general survey of the state of scientific affairs of the Universe there’s a missing piece; still a flag of “not yet proven” waving over the Pentagon of discovery. Although maybe not the missing pieces, I’ll talk about balance and its relationship to motion (balance at changing speeds, and balance harnessing energy), easily-natural-found rhythm (electrified in light and sound around us), and a phenomenon called “neurodiversity,” an exercise in the study of the studiers, as unlikely but possible parts of the puzzle.
Further, the Universe may not be designed to be understood; a concept that may be fundamental to it; we may only be able to ever understand how we live in it, but not how big it is (subjective experience), especially mathematically, because base-ten math is a human invention essentially being forced to adapt.
Australian Engineering Professor Derek Abbott says in a paper referenced on the website Phys.org math is just a “mental construct,” and “Math only has the illusion of being effective when we focus on the successful examples,” adding “A genius is merely one who has a great idea, but has the common sense to keep quiet about his other thousand insane thoughts.”
Imagine the universe only exists as we see it, in our “human time,” the parts we can’t see are superseding us via either being too far away or too close, or because they are moving either too fast or too slow, and, if we could see more of it than we can, we would immediately be confused. These are the constraints. Beyond them, though, is an immensely-interesting but invisible universe we keep successfully interacting with, egging us on! And while we are imagining the universe only exists as we see it, something very human tells us, I think, there’s much more.
We want there to be more than just “as we see it.” It could easily be argued the concept of infinity needs to be; it’s essential to the way human’s think; that a human essentially and initially rejects concepts that lack infinity, for example, a box the universe fits into, the smallest thing with nothing possibly being smaller than it, a top possible conceptual number or a wall where number division must stop. Numbers can easily be seen as both entirely conceptual and necessarily infinite! Humans reject a finite universe, “figuring out infinity,” conceptually, in a fundamental way.
Our view of the universe, “as we see it,” doesn’t reject mystery, but the opposite! Instead, the natural world could be said to reject pure science, as it (nature) doesn’t seek stringency, but only balance, and further, balance is an ongoing operation that can never (God laughs here) be accomplished. In nature, there’s really no such thing as fully-accomplished balance, an opposite-reaction testimony to the motion of a pendulum; everything is always moving and trying to achieve perfect balance, but, like the E-string dances around perfect pitch when you’re tuning your guitar, but never seems to land right on it, the organic world is in an eternal, subtle dance of balance.
The universe doesn’t answer to everything by numbers, and certainly doesn’t always give easy answers.
It could be suggested the entire natural world, the entire universe, is constantly perched upon a tightrope, and is never firmly dissectible simply because it’s always changing. Because it’s always moving, we may need a moving needle to measure the heartbeat of the universe, not a strict formula everything must follow.
Our understanding of the universe is vast and rich, but ultimately subjective. All us humans on earth are the observers, and we’re patiently waiting for observable results! If the examination of the universe requires attempting to disassemble time and space, though, even just to study them, the results will be unprovable. And scientists might be enlightened, not stifled, by starting off trying to get observable results (with an observer that could actually exist). Many points of view may be provable but entirely unsatisfying, as well, just because they lack any real perspective. Finally, it should be assumed some things about the universe, some which may be critical, can’t be quantized.
For questions about the universe, the answers must be digested by the human race, the “observer’s world,” the source of perspective that will make it make sense!
This “observer’s world” is what you always experience, what feels like regular kinds of speeds and distances, and generally in balance.
Let’s zoom in on the “regularly-sized” world and look at something really big; watch the human field of view balance its landscape “on the fly”: Imagine an enormous boat, let’s call her “Gargantua.” People all look very small in comparison to the huge ship, her funnels and general profile, as she sits at dock. But then, later that same day, as the boat enters open water, things that were large are now very small, including the boat itself (viewed from the dock), and the enormous boat’s profile now would be difficult to see (especially at night) by another boat, say, 5-10 miles away. It would be tiny. These are the same eyes; the same subjects and objects. Everything changed based on the relative environment (even our perception of how fast things are going); a factual change we can not supersede.
Regarding science, if he had different eyes, the observer might see everything differently, and see more, but, philosophy insists … he doesn’t!
When viewing our universe, just as when viewing the results of studies of it, the point of view can make a big difference. Let’s not forget, as experimental evidence evolves, we must constantly pursue the original question of what study is worth our time (and money). I believe we should base this on trying to get answers that are subjectively realistic!