I’m getting the feeling this will be my answer:
Probably no meaningful tracing.
But doesn’t all matter ultimately date back to the big bang? It doesn’t have to be an atomi’d settle for the thing that makes the things that make the atoms.
Hay and was just a side-line question too. I now totally retract my original (what does the universe look like from the inside when it was the size of a tennis ball). Seems now I might as well have been asking for a photograph of the inflation field!
So look, I won’t follow it up, but I will confess to what was in my mind at the time. I wanted to hear that the universe would look infinitely big (not wrapped up back on itself, but stretching out forever). And this was part of my ‘master vision’ = the size of the universe is like the comparison between natural and even number infinities.
In my mind, I had drawn those 2 infinities as a venn diagram..little circle inside big circle. Voila. Today’s universe (natural numbers) and tennis ball universe (even numbers). Both exactly the same size, both infinitely big AND one smaller than the other. Kinda. Smaller is the wrong word, but ffs don't start picking at it.
Ok so its a fantasy. Just some ideas are so hardeg I HATE the universe-wrapping-back-on-itself kind of infinity, but somehow the universe-stretching-out-forever kind is ok. Similarly, infinitely small and infinitely big is ok, but I can only deal with the transition if there is no middle ground. A tennis ball size universe really freaks me out!!
Hey and why is it a little hard to NOT imagine the tennis ball universe from a spectator’s viewand, it is impossible TO go to that view when imagining today’s universe?!
Reckon I got me some internal problems.
So, I’ve taken a few deep breaths. Think I need to put the whole concept away until I learn some maths. I’m hearing from you all that calculus is a good starting spot.
Still very much enjoying this forum btw.
Take care,
Lurkey