Could The Vacuum The Universe Sprang From Be...

[Plat]

A decayed, ancient, old universe....that had quantum fluctuations happen?

And the universe is the result

[StarLab]

Detail, please.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 10 2005, 05:05 AM
Could The Vacuum The Universe Sprang From Be A decayed, ancient, old universe that had quantum fluctuations happen, and the universe is the result?

Of course, we haven't seen anything like that happen since we started observing. Can you suggest a test that might tell us whether this is what happened? For my part, I prefer to work on understanding what we can observe, and leave the details of what happened before to mountebanks, mediums, and other dealers in the occult.

[ChromeStar]

You must admit Anton that some suggested theories and ideas like the multiverse are intriguing, but i agree that for now it is pointless to wonder what is beyond what we do not yet understand.

[Plat]

Well when the universe is dead, it basically becomes a vacuum (the whole thing), it will be a zero energy field or close to a zero energy field and quantum fluctuations will happen (and im not saying it cant happen now) and sooner or later atleast one of the quantum fluctuations will trigger another big bang

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 10 2005, 10:09 PM
sooner or later at least one of the quantum fluctuations will trigger another big bang

What do you think a quantum fluctuation is?

Also, if before the universe, there was a big empty universe here, would that previous one still be expanding around us? Would ther be relic neuitrinos from the previous universe? How about relic dark energy?

[Plat]

quantum fluctuation is this

http://universe-review.ca/R03-01-quantumflu.htm

dont worry i didnt just make this theory up i got it from some physicists that thought it up....i actually think that this is what would happen, i think that the old universe (this is just me though) would have already dissipated into nothingness


http://www.phys.cwru.edu/~krauss/03ENDrev.html

"Another glimmer of hope comes from the deadly and chilling Hawking radiation itself, said Dr. Raphael Bousso, from the Institute of Theoretical Physics at the University of California at Santa Barbara. Since that radiation is produced by unpredictable quantum fluctuations, he pointed out, if you wait long enough anything can appear in it, even a new universe. "Sooner or later one of those quantum fluctuations will look like a Big Bang," he said."

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 10 2005, 10:37 PM
"Sooner or later one of those quantum fluctuations will look like a Big Bang,"

Don't hold your breath waiting for it.

[Plat]

i think its a reasonable possibilty

[GOURDHEAD]

i think its a reasonable possibilty

But is it a plausible likelihood? Possibilities are closely coupled to regions of absolute truth that we will never be sure we have accessed. Impossibilities guarantee that the probability is zero.

[Plat]

Well if the universe did come from a vacuum.....and a quantum fluctuation tirggered the big bang, the universe (this one) in the far future will become a big vacuum....quantum fluctuations will happen, i think theres a pretty good chance of it happening

[swift tuttle]

Hi everybody,
Your views on quantum fluctuations and the origin of the
cosmos were very interesting.However you seem to have
missed the inflationary picture.The theory of inflation is
emerging as the most wholesome theory explaining the
origin of the universe.The theory postulates the universe
to have sprung from a state of quantum nothingness.
I think the success of the inflationary theory makes
the case of quantum fluctuations very strong.

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by swift tuttle@Jan 20 2005, 10:57 AM
The theory postulates the universe to have sprung from a state of quantum nothingness. I think the success of the inflationary theory makes the case of quantum fluctuations very strong.

Have you ever seen a state of quantum nothingness, or observed its properties, such as the likelyness that an entire universe could spring from it? While I don't say I have proof against this idea, I think the case for it is not yet "strong". I treat this as one of the untestable explanations for the origin of what we observe today.

[GOURDHEAD]

Here and here are reference links.

Excerpted from link 1:

Quantum Fluctuations :
The fact that the Universe exists should not be a surprise in the context of what we know about quantum physics. The uncertainty and unpredictability of the quantum world is manifested in the fact that whatever can happen, does happen (this is often called the principle of totalitarianism, that if a quantum mechanical process is not strictly forbidden, then it must occur).

For example, radioactive decay occurs when two protons and two neutrons (an alpha particle) leap out of an atomic nuclei. Since the positions of the protons and neutrons is governed by the wave function, there is a small, but finite, probability that all four will quantum tunnel outside the nucleus, and therefore escape. The probability of this happening is small, but given enough time (tens of years) it will happen.

The same principles were probably in effect at the time of the Big Bang (although we can not test this hypothesis within our current framework of physics). But as such, the fluctuations in the quantum vacuum effectively guarantee that the Universe would come into existence.

Alas! the struggle continues. If there is a clear definition of quantum fluctuation available, it has managed to elude me. It appears that some are guessing that something of no size, shape, nor content "fluctuated" from nowhere into everything, everywhere over all time. One would be hard pressed to contemplate a grander epicycle.

Quantizing is a way of characterizing aspects of physics and cosmology that are believed to avoid continuousness. [Calculus assumes continuous functions]. Quantization usualy refers to the magnitude of minute structural characteristics of spacetime and various manifestations of force and energy, and their quantum nature implies that only discrete values can be assumed by them. Then there is the boundless ambiguity of fluctuation. How can nothing from nowhere become everything everywhere by quantum fluctuation? We have posited conditions of a most absurd nature and smiled as we say we can't find out about that; it's beyond the current laws of physics. What does it take to convince us we're on the wrong track.

Does anyone of you know the precise definition of quantum fluctuation? Can it be any more precise than "And God said let there be a quantum fluctuation and it was astounding, the epitomal inspiration of awe"?

[Plat]

"How can 'nothing' do anything at all, let alone create an entire universe?

When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

Space and time were not the things we know them to be today because our world is a lot colder than the way it started out.

Nothingness was not nothing, but it was not anything like the kinds of 'somethings' we know about today. We have no words to describe it, and the ones we borrow (that are listed in the Oxford English Dictionary) are based on the wrong physical insight."

http://www.astronomycafe.net/qadir/ask/a11831.html

[GOURDHEAD]

The primordial 'state' at the Big Bang was far from being the kind of 'nothingness' you might have in mind. We don't have a full mathematical theory for describing this 'state' yet, but it was probably 'multi-dimensional', it was probably a superposition of many different 'fields', and these fields, or whatever they were, were undergoing 'quantum fluctuations'.

Some posit that the big bang initiated spacetime, matter, and energy. The absence of each of these prior to the big bang is what I am assuming is meant by nothing. Is a test of the reasonableness of our speculations determined by what they lead to ..... with the fewest epicycles?

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 22 2005, 01:20 PM
When physicists say 'nothing' they are being playful with the English language, because we often think of the vacuum as being 'empty' or 'nothing' when in fact physicists know full well that the vacuum is far from empty.

Our language is composed of terms and rules for conveying ideas. Unfortunately, some ideas are so alien to the common experience that terms need to be used in new, and perhaps allegorical ways, that alter some of the cultural meaning.

In this case we are trying to use layman's terms such as 'vacuum', 'nothing', and 'empty' to describe something which is at best a current notion for how things were 13.8 billion years ago. The fact is we have some facts, and a whole pile of mostly mutually contradictory theories that seem to explain some of the facts, but which can't be demonstrated. Is it worth inventing new terms for something that may, ten to fifty years from now be a forgotten footnote in the description of the universe? Maybe, but what would that term mean to the layman?

This is why I say they are not being playfull [i.e. lying or deceitful] they are trying to use familiar terms that are as close to the concept as the imagined target audience can handle.

[StarLab]

If we defined "nothing" as merely the absence of the physical laws that govern our own universe, how could any physical properties possibly recombine to create a new universe from the ashes of our own? And, what is the possibility of such quantum fluctuations as the average kelvin of the cosmos approaches zero?

[Plat]

Oh it is very possible, fluctuations can happen even in the lowest of temperature.

All I am saying is how can something come from absolute nothing?....there must have been a field or state of some kind that the universe emerged from and some say it was a vacuum....sooner or later the universe will be just a vacuum....so I did the math....

[StarLab]

Plat, I do not think we live in a recyclical universe. Just because our universe came from a part of another former universe, doesn't mean a part of our universe will branch off to become a separate universe (unless the splinch in question is an intergalactic intron).

[Plat]

Well I dont mean "branching off", I meant when the universe is completely dead and is just one big vacuum...quantum fluctuations happen (its happening all the time and everywhere) and if our universe really did come from that like some suggests then I would think that another Big Bang might emerge from our dead universe, the state of it we really dont know

Another idea is that our universe arose from a quantum fluctuation (yes, again) in a quantum field with quantum fluctuations happening all around....string theory is involved in this one and its much more complicated

I just dont think that our universe came from absolute nothingness...there was probably some kind of field or state that preceded the Big Bang and who says only one Big Bang happened in that field

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 22 2005, 06:40 PM
sooner or later the universe will be just a vacuum....so I did the math....

Ummm, can you show the math, because the way I see it, the universe will NEVER be a perfect vacuum. Not later, and certainly not sooner.

[Plat]

Who said anything about a perfect vacuum...I just said one big vacuum...

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 23 2005, 02:00 AM
Who said anything about a perfect vacuum...I just said one big vacuum.

Depending on what you call a vacuum, you could say the universe has been one for the last 13.6 billion years. So what's the difference as far as the sorts of things you're talking about?

[Plat]

Well I meant when the universe is dead....far, far into the future....when even the smallest of particles decay (of only course those possible to decay)

[antoniseb]

Originally posted by Plat@Jan 23 2005, 03:56 AM
Well I meant when the universe is dead...

I still don't understand what would be substantially different then from now in terms of this quantum fluctuation you seem to be waiting for. Right now, on average there are only a few particles per cubic meter of space. This means that by more than a ratio of 10^40 to one, space is empty. How much emptier does it need to get, and why?

[Plat]

Well for a regular quantum fluctuation to become a Big Bang it has to stay in existence for a longer than normal period of time allowing for it to inflate

[StarLab]

Plat, I think you underestimate logarithmically hyperbolic exponentiality.

[GOURDHEAD]

I think you underestimate logarithmically hyperbolic exponentiality

That would be difficult for me. I have no idea what it means, the initial conditions, nor the rate of change.

[StarLab]

The universal entropy that keeps the background radiation from reaching zero kelvin.