Morat - VPP - Round 3?

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
 
  No comment on my question? (The little thought experiment).
 

Oops, sorry Morat.  Um, if something was bigger than the tiny space...it couldn't fit in the tiny space...I guess I need the context of your question.

 

[Morat]

Oops, sorry Morat.  Um, if something was bigger than the tiny space...it couldn't fit in the tiny space...I guess I need the context of your question

  That would be the point, Souljah. It's too big to fit into the tiny space. The tiny space cannot be broached, so the particle can't overlap into other spaces.

   So what happens?

   The particle can't be crushed down, because it's already too big. The tiny space has to swell to accomodate it. This, unsuprisingly, breaks things.

   After all, if a bowling ball appeared in a small balloon, the balloon would burst (it'd have to react instantly, and even rubber isn't elastic enough to change size that fast).

   This is roughly analogous to how certain pre-Big Bang cosmologies work. (Not all, just some). The "tiny space" would be the Higgs, constrained in a single Plank interval. (It would be surrounded by an infinite number of Higgs in similiar Plank intervals. Each discrete). These Higgs fields would be "empty", operating at a value of 0. (This is what some cosmologists consider the ultimate level of reality. A sort of grainy nothingness, operating on a quantum level. It would be primordial and eternal.). Now, being a quantum level field, it would fluctuate.

   Sooner or later (so to speak, there not being time) one of these Higgs would fluctuate to a critical value, one larger than the Plank interval could contain. (Akin to a particle appearing). The "tiny bit of space" would be forced to inflate. This would break symmetry, which would release a great deal of heat. And then, as the universe expanded, it would begin to supercool (X amount of heat from symmetry breaking, distributed over a larger and larger volume). Matter would appear, as energy densities dropped. (Much like sugar dropping out of a supersaturated solution).

  This is, I add, a laymen level analogy for one speculative pre-Big Bang cosmology. It is only slightly predictive (it predicts the universe's energy level would be flat) and remains fairly untestable (except for the existance and value of the Higgs) until a GUT is derived.

   But it's based on fairly well understood physics, and a few bits that have yet to be verified (mainly Higgs and quantum gravity stuff). And, assuming a good enough GUT, ultimately would be testable and predictive.

  

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat


  That would be the point, Souljah. It's too big to fit into the tiny space. The tiny space cannot be broached, so the particle can't overlap into other spaces.

   So what happens?

   The particle can't be crushed down, because it's already too big. The tiny space has to swell to accomodate it. This, unsuprisingly, breaks things.

   After all, if a bowling ball appeared in a small balloon, the balloon would burst (it'd have to react instantly, and even rubber isn't elastic enough to change size that fast).

   This is roughly analogous to how certain pre-Big Bang cosmologies work. (Not all, just some). The "tiny space" would be the Higgs, constrained in a single Plank interval. (It would be surrounded by an infinite number of Higgs in similiar Plank intervals. Each discrete). These Higgs fields would be "empty", operating at a value of 0. (This is what some cosmologists consider the ultimate level of reality. A sort of grainy nothingness, operating on a quantum level. It would be primordial and eternal.). Now, being a quantum level field, it would fluctuate.

   Sooner or later (so to speak, there not being time) one of these Higgs would fluctuate to a critical value, one larger than the Plank interval could contain. (Akin to a particle appearing). The "tiny bit of space" would be forced to inflate. This would break symmetry, which would release a great deal of heat. And then, as the universe expanded, it would begin to supercool (X amount of heat from symmetry breaking, distributed over a larger and larger volume). Matter would appear, as energy densities dropped. (Much like sugar dropping out of a supersaturated solution).

  This is, I add, a laymen level analogy for one speculative pre-Big Bang cosmology. It is only slightly predictive (it predicts the universe's energy level would be flat) and remains fairly untestable (except for the existance and value of the Higgs) until a GUT is derived.

   But it's based on fairly well understood physics, and a few bits that have yet to be verified (mainly Higgs and quantum gravity stuff). And, assuming a good enough GUT, ultimately would be testable and predictive.

  

Interesting stuff, thanks Morat.

A sort of grainy nothingness, operating on a quantum level. It would be primordial and eternal.

Why eternal? 

 

 

 

[Morat]

Why eternal? 

 

  It just seems to be what "reality" is.

  Eternal for the basic reason that it seems to be what is, reality-wise. Nothing is an empty Higgs. (That is, true nothing). It's not space-dependent, time-dependent, anything-dependent.

  So "primordial" and "eternal" seems to fit. It's always been there, and always will. Theoretically.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

So "primordial" and "eternal" seems to fit. It's always been there, and always will. Theoretically

Based on nothing except wishful thinking, right?

 

[Morat]

  I'm obviously not familiar with the math, but from what I understand, if the cosmology is correct, the Higgs would have to be primordial (and thus eternal).

   If it's an incorrect basis for the cosmology, then it'll fall apart. If you're really curious, I'll dig up Peter's email address and you can ask him yourself. He's involved (professionally) in that sort of thing, and can answer your questions in far greater detail then I can. Failing that, I can recommend a few books.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Originally posted by Morat
  I'm obviously not familiar with the math, but from what I understand, if the cosmology is correct, the Higgs would have to be primordial (and thus eternal).

   If it's an incorrect basis for the cosmology, then it'll fall apart. If you're really curious, I'll dig up Peter's email address and you can ask him yourself. He's involved (professionally) in that sort of thing, and can answer your questions in far greater detail then I can. Failing that, I can recommend a few books.

 

That would be cool.  Thanks.

P.S.

Being primordial doesnt necessarily mean eternal.  It just means the first part in the observable progression of time.

 

[Morat]

  In this sense, I think it does. *shrug*. You'll have to address a cosmologist. Since pre-Big Bang cosmology is speculative at this point, you'd have to seek out someone involved (or following) that particular thread.

  Hmm. I'd recommend Dressler's Voyage to the Great Attracter (I believe he updated it to include this sort of thing. It's a good book anyways, if older) and The Five Ages of the Universe whose author I can't recall.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Who was that Peter dude you mentioned before...and his email address?  I assume he is a prominent scientist working in the field?

Thanks

 

[Morat]

  Yeah. He's a cosmologist. I knew him when he was completing his Ph.D. down here (I think at Rice, but that may have been his undergrad). I haven't spoken to him in a year or two, but I'll see about digging up his current email address. In the meantime, I do recommend those books.

 

 

[Chris†opher Paul]

Ok, I will put those in my list to read.

By the way, I have a scientist of my own tucked away for this topic...here:

Dr. Hugh Ross...

"While God is not limited, quantum mechanical processes are. Quantum mechanics is founded on the concept that there are finite probabilities for quantum events to take place within certain time intervals. The greater the interval of time, the greater the probablitity. But, without time no quantum event is possible. Therefore, the origin of time (and space, matter, and energy) eliminates quantum tunneling as Creator."

 

[Morat]

  He's kinda misleading there (I doubt on purpose). Time is really the flow of cause and effect, correct? It's what keeps causes from happening before effects.

  Take time itself: The universe, theoretically (it's one of those things that looks that way, but requires a GUT to be sure), has a cosmic tick. Every 10^-42 seconds, I believe. The planck interval for time. It's the graininess of the universe.

   Now, time would be the connection of each "tick" with the ones before and after it.

   However, in the absence of time, nothing prevents isolated  "ticks" with no connections before and after.

   The Higgs model of pre-Big Band cosmology (which isn't tunneling, but is vaguely similiar) would have each of these Higgs fields "ticking" every 10^42 seconds. Each tick takes the field to a random state. No connection between states, no "time".

   Every messed around with Conway's "Game of Life"?

   Imagine the pre-Universe as an infinite field of little squares. (Each square would represent an empty Higgs field in a planck interval). They'd be empty. Every "tick" of the Game, the value of each of the fields would take on a random number.

  Here's the difference, though. Our universe, the "previous" state of the game, influences the next state. In the pre-Universe, it wouldn't. Each tick would completely reset the field to a new set of random values.