Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   T=0 and a Zero Energy Universe
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1 of 64 (466890)
05-18-2008 9:20 AM


Every time there is a debate involving the creationist contingent regarding Big Bang theory and current cosmological models the entire focus ends up being on T=0 and even "T"http://www.astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html
I would also like to cover the concept of "T"<0 where "t" is some sort of "time" external to the universe, presumably relating a 'multiverse' or such. what are current speculations in this area and on they based?
string theory, branes, quantum fluctuations, relationship between particle physics cosmology, theories gravity etc.etc. do we actually know about these things? hypotheses have? experimental work going areas? wild wacky there based?
what so special planck time why anything within frame initial universe mysterious different??
i appreciate that none above necessarily relate currently established cosmological models. i speculation rather than tested evidence basis for much discussion such things. that's fine. as long it made clear "know", "think", "might be" "possibly could differentiate accordingly think topic be an interesting one all concerned.
i creationists might learn something way science works terms differentiating empirically verified plausible (ever optimist!) well appreciation things not actually covered by the currently established BB theory.
For the rest of us a foray into the bizzarre and speculative world of theoretical physics and an opportunity to see if we really have understood any of those popular science books on the subject.
If nothing else I hope it will be new twist on a debate topic area that is becoming tired and bogged down here at EvC (in my opinion)
Some input by resident cosmology experts would be very much appreciated.
Creationist thoughts are also welcome but lets take the expansion of the universe as an empirically tested given, avoid any biblical quotes and concentrate on your perceived problems with T=0 and "before".
Let the speculation begin.................
Topic area: Big Bang and Cosmology would seem the very obvious candidate.

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by tesla, posted 06-13-2008 11:46 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 2 of 64 (466893)
05-18-2008 9:38 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 64 (466914)
05-18-2008 3:51 PM


T = 0
First of all there are basically three sorts of universe origin models and one other view.
The first being "Oh, there wasn't a T=0 at all". This usually involves the universe or something existing prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang turns out to be simply some event caused around the point T=0, but it wasn't the origin of everything. Such models would be the cyclic universe and brane world models. In the former the universe has been expanding a contracting for hundreds (infinite?) cycles, the Big Bang simply being the beginning of our cycle. In the later the universe is formed when extra-dimensional branes collide.
The second is "There was a T=0, however stuff we understand was around in a timeless sense before that". Examples of this are the Hawking-Hartle no-boundary proposal and the Hawking-Turok instanton. In these cases the universes is formed when fields we are familiar with quantum tunnel themselves into a state we call the universe. However the fields already exist in a timeless sense.
The third is "There was a T=0, but it involves mysterious stuff". This is probably the most popular view, although specific models are rare. To give an example, in the theory of causal dynamical triangulation there are little things called simplexes which are "timeless". The simplexes obey very simple quantum mechanical rules which make them arrange themselves into large scale structures we call universes which have space and time.
The fourth, which has become more popular in recent years, is "What!, quantum mechanics is a theory of atomic measurement, what do you mean unify it with General Relativity?" In this view, quantum mechanics is a theory of how macroscopic devices interact with the microscopic world (or something similar, maybe a theory of how macroscopic things convey microscopic information). In this view applying Quantum Mechanics to the universe makes no sense, since the universe is not a microscopic system under observation.
Anyway, there you go.

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2008 4:04 PM Son Goku has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 4 of 64 (466916)
05-18-2008 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Son Goku
05-18-2008 3:51 PM


Re: T = 0
Do you personally subscribe to any of these views?
How do those who subscribe to the fourth option deal with the very obvious question of a universe of quantum proportions in it's very early state?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2008 3:51 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2008 4:24 PM Straggler has replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 64 (466918)
05-18-2008 4:24 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by Straggler
05-18-2008 4:04 PM


Re: T = 0
Do you personally subscribe to any of these views?
Probably the third, although being noncommittal I don't think any current model is correct. That said I usually find models in the second category the most interesting physically and mathematically.
How do those who subscribe to the fourth option deal with the very obvious question of a universe of quantum proportions in it's very early state?
As a whole, this group sees Quantum Mechanics as a theory of how large scale objects obtain, manipulate and relate information about the subatomic world.
Given this view, they subdivide into two camps:
(a)Quantum Mechanics is the best we can get, we cannot "know" the microscopic world on its own terms. (Niels Bohr is the originator/father of this view)
(b)We can do better and need to find a theory that's actually about the microscopic world, rather than our relation to it. ('t Hooft is a person from this class)
As you can guess only those in group (b) would even attempt to deal with the early universe and they believe we need a true theory of the microscopic world before we tackle the big bang.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by Straggler, posted 05-18-2008 4:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 3:59 PM Son Goku has replied
 Message 9 by onifre, posted 05-20-2008 8:15 AM Son Goku has not replied

  
ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 6 of 64 (466924)
05-18-2008 4:58 PM


RE:T=0
Please, no replies to this message. --Admin
Everybody thinks I am crazy and stupid so here I will try to remove all doubt.
T = Time
0 = A point as we know that time did not exist.
Time is an element for man nothing else in the universe has to have time.
Was there ever a time of any kind that there was an absence of anything?
NO. If there was everything we see had to come into existence ex nihilo.
Since nothing could come into existence ex nihilo there had to be something.
This something has existed eternally. Or it had to be created ex nihilo.
I view this eternal existence as God. You call it whatever you desire.
The law of conservation of energy says there had to be an existence of energy/matter as it can not be created or destroyed.
If it can not be created or destroyed that means it has always been in existence in some form.
If it has always been there has to be somewhere for it to exist.
I propose it existed where the Great I Am is.
I Am means all that there is, ever was or will ever be. That equals to God.
In the Beginning God created the heaven and the earth. He made man, animals, birds, plants. God caused the heavens to stretch out and is still stretching them today. This event took place when there was no time as we know it because there was no sun and moon to mark time.
There was only one eternal day until time was marked off for the benefit of modern man.
There will come a time when time as we know it will cease as this universe explodes and melts with fervent heat.
Then there will be a new heaven and earth and the balance of that eternal day will be played out.
God Bless,
Edited by Admin, : Add note at top.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 05-18-2008 8:21 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 64 (466947)
05-18-2008 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by ICANT
05-18-2008 4:58 PM


Re: RE:T=0
Hi ICANT,
You're more than welcome to participate in this discussion as long as you do not post nonsense. If you continue as you are I will remove your posting privileges in this forum.
Please, no replies.
Edited by Admin, : Add final line.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by ICANT, posted 05-18-2008 4:58 PM ICANT has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 8 of 64 (467104)
05-19-2008 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Son Goku
05-18-2008 4:24 PM


Re: T = 0
I have looked up simplexes and don't really understand how they are useful. Why is dividing the spacetime of the very early universe into 2D triangular chunks (which is my very basic, and quite possibly very wrong, understanding of the concept) considered to be a useful or valid thing to do?
Also in more practical terms, how do current (or imminent) developments in particle physics (e.g. the Large Hadron Collider), CMB mapping and gravity wave detection relate to the various areas of research you have outlined? Do any of the theory areas you have mentioned make any specific predictions about any of these experimental projects and what they should find?
My understanding is that string theory in particular could potentially be 'verified' to some extent by the LHC 'exposing' the existence of some of the tiny curled up dimensions that this theory necessarily requires.
Is this true?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2008 4:24 PM Son Goku has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Son Goku, posted 05-20-2008 3:57 PM Straggler has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 9 of 64 (467210)
05-20-2008 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Son Goku
05-18-2008 4:24 PM


Re: T = 0
As you can guess only those in group (b) would even attempt to deal with the early universe and they believe we need a true theory of the microscopic world before we tackle the big bang.
By microscopic do you mean dark matter/energy? And to follow the LHC question, would this be something the LHC would be able to, or at least predicted to, find? And where would the Higgs boson fit into all of this?
Sorry if my questions seem redundant. I don't know where some of these things connect to each other.

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Son Goku, posted 05-18-2008 4:24 PM Son Goku has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2008 12:58 PM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 10 of 64 (467240)
05-20-2008 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by onifre
05-20-2008 8:15 AM


Re: T = 0
By microscopic do you mean dark matter/energy?
No. He means very tiny. I.e. of quantum proportions. Sizes of atomic scales. In this context it refers directly to then very early universe when it was incredibly small and our classical theories (i.e. non-quantum) of space and time break down.
And to follow the LHC question, would this be something the LHC would be able to, or at least predicted to, find? And where would the Higgs boson fit into all of this?
As I understand it the Higgs Boson is a predicted particle that relates to the mass of all other particles.
It is predicted by the 'standard model' which is comparable to the periodic table of elements in terms of concept. The standard model structures particles in terms of their various properties in much the same way that the periodic table does elements.
I also understand that the Higgs Boson is a candidate for Dark Matter but I don't know how widely that is believed.
The LHC certainly hopes to detect the Higgs Boson.
Maybe someone with more knowledge can elaborate further?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by onifre, posted 05-20-2008 8:15 AM onifre has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Son Goku, posted 05-20-2008 4:05 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 64 (467258)
05-20-2008 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Straggler
05-19-2008 3:59 PM


Re: T = 0
Straggler writes:
I have looked up simplexes and don't really understand how they are useful. Why is dividing the spacetime of the very early universe into 2D triangular chunks (which is my very basic, and quite possibly very wrong, understanding of the concept) considered to be a useful or valid thing to do?
All of the attempts at quantum gravity seem to stress some sort of important relation between "information" and area. An example is the entropy of a black hole, which is equal (roughly) to its area. That is, the statistical information of a black hole is somehow captured by the area of its event horizon. There are several examples in different approaches to quantum gravity, but basically there appears to be something very important about area.
There is also a strong belief among some that quantum gravity means discrete spacetime. Finally others believe that the most important element to General Relativity is causality.
Putting this together you have "causal discrete quantum areas", which is what causal dynamical triangulation basically is. Simplices are used (instead of other 2d shapes) because of their important mathematical properties. (They are very important in topology)
However this isn't cutting up spacetime. Rather, you have a system of quantum simplices which evolve and you hope that they give rise to classical spacetime a superstructure. (Initial computer simulations show that they do give rise to spacetimes).
Also in more practical terms, how do current (or imminent) developments in particle physics (e.g. the Large Hadron Collider), CMB mapping and gravity wave detection relate to the various areas of research you have outlined? Do any of the theory areas you have mentioned make any specific predictions about any of these experimental projects and what they should find?
Different theories will emphasise different avenues for experimental verification. Quite a lot make gravitational wave predictions. Unfortunately gravitational wave detection isn't even sensitive enough to test General Relativity yet. Basically most of these theories are done by either cosmologically minded people or particle physics people. The LHC has more relelvance for theories orginated by the later, the CMB for the former.
My understanding is that string theory in particular could potentially be 'verified' to some extent by the LHC 'exposing' the existence of some of the tiny curled up dimensions that this theory necessarily requires.
Is this true?
cavediver could answer this much better. I never studied String Theory to a "working knowledge" level.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Straggler, posted 05-19-2008 3:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2008 4:40 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Son Goku
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 64 (467260)
05-20-2008 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Straggler
05-20-2008 12:58 PM


Higgs
The higgs boson is a particle predicted by the Standard model. The last particle it predicts that hasn't been found. The Higgs is related to electroweak symmetry breaking, the process where the electromagnetic force seperated from the weak nuclear force.
It isn't a candidate for Dark Matter though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Straggler, posted 05-20-2008 12:58 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by onifre, posted 05-20-2008 7:38 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 13 of 64 (467264)
05-20-2008 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Son Goku
05-20-2008 3:57 PM


Calling Cavediver
My understanding is that string theory in particular could potentially be 'verified' to some extent by the LHC 'exposing' the existence of some of the tiny curled up dimensions that this theory necessarily requires.
Is this true?
cavediver could answer this much better. I never studied String Theory to a "working knowledge" level.
Cavediver - What is it hoped the LHC will provide us with in terms of evidence for string theory or any of the other candidates for a theory of everything?
Also is the seemingly very simple idea of a zero energy universe produced as the result of a quantum fluctuation (linked to the OP) a viable candidate for the origin of the universe?
Which theory, if any, regarding cosmological origins do you subscribe to and on what grounds?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Son Goku, posted 05-20-2008 3:57 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 14 of 64 (467292)
05-20-2008 7:38 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Son Goku
05-20-2008 4:05 PM


Re: Higgs
The Higgs is related to electroweak symmetry breaking, the process where the electromagnetic force seperated from the weak nuclear force.
Does this mean it would have been present at the very early universe stage?
From what I read it is one of the building blocks of the universe, at what moment after T=O did it appear, or could it have been the catalist for the expantion itself?

All great truths begin as blasphemies

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Son Goku, posted 05-20-2008 4:05 PM Son Goku has not replied

  
Marcosll
Junior Member (Idle past 5778 days)
Posts: 25
From: Estepona, Spain
Joined: 02-14-2008


Message 15 of 64 (467355)
05-21-2008 7:52 AM


T=0=God
What always amuses me is how people are happy to accept that at T=0 this inmense Big Bang creates the known universe from nothingness but talking about God is crazy talk.
It's like it's ok to admit that inmense energy suddenly appeared from nothing but it's crazy to try to imagine where that energy came from or what created it.
I think the big problem people have is they think of God as a human rather than as a superior form of transdimensional intelligent energy.

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by lyx2no, posted 05-21-2008 8:02 AM Marcosll has not replied
 Message 17 by Admin, posted 05-21-2008 8:03 AM Marcosll has not replied
 Message 18 by Straggler, posted 05-21-2008 8:45 AM Marcosll has not replied
 Message 19 by onifre, posted 05-21-2008 5:20 PM Marcosll has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024