Off-topic Discussion Split from: Why is there something rather than nothing?

[Conjurer]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is more of an invention or definition than a "discovery". It had nothing to do with particle accelerators (which hadn't been invented in 1899).

There is no Nobel Prize in cosmology.

The nearest would be physics. The 2014 Nobel Prize in Physics was for the invention of blue LEDs: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/nobel-prizes-2014-the-winners

So, any chance you could provide a reference to this "more recent work done on finding a more accurate solution to the cosmological constant"?

 

I guess it was the 2011 Nobel Prize.  I am horrible with remembering dates.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/press-release/

For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/9878-useful-links-further-reading-2011-3/

 

20 minutes ago, Strange said:

It is more of an invention or definition than a "discovery". It had nothing to do with particle accelerators (which hadn't been invented in 1899).

The work was preliminary. 

 

adjective

 

1. 1.

   denoting an action or event preceding or done in preparation for something fuller or more important.

[Strange]

16 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

I guess it was the 2011 Nobel Prize.  I am horrible with remembering dates.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/press-release/

For almost a century, the Universe has been known to be expanding as a consequence of the Big Bang about 14 billion years ago. However, the discovery that this expansion is accelerating is astounding. If the expansion will continue to speed up the Universe will end in ice.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/9878-useful-links-further-reading-2011-3/

And what role do Planck units play in that?

 

[Conjurer]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

And what role do Planck units play in that?

 

They determined the amount of energy in space required for an individual Planck Unit of space required to fit the cosmological constant which was observed. Why? I am not sure exactly.  It ended up being a higher value than anything else known in physics.

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

They determined the amount of energy in space required for an individual Planck Unit of space required to fit the cosmological constant which was observed. Why? I am not sure exactly.  It ended up being a higher value than anything else known in physics.

And you can, of course, provide a reference for that?

[Conjurer]

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

And you can, of course, provide a reference for that?

You would have to find the scientific papers they used to make the discovery.  Brian Green wrote an entire book about it.  My information is second had information from him.

[MigL]

Nothing is extremely stable.
As systems tend towards the lowest energy state to achieve stability, a state of zero energy would have no way to progress, as it is already in its lowest energy/highest stability state. The fact that the universe is expanding ( and expansion is accelerating ) implies a non -zero Cosmological Constant. IE the universe is NOT at the lowest energy state, but a false non-zero state.

Virtual particle pairs are proof that 'something' can come from nothing.
During the time they are in existence, their effects can be detected, yet, after the time they are allotted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, they return their mass/energy, and nothing remains. They are the very definition of a Quantum fluctuation.

And Conjurer is an example of the confusion that results when you get your education from TV programs, YouTube and pop-sci books, while never having read a Physics or Math book.
Max Planck had nothing to do with Planck units or particle accelerators.
He made a wild guess, and quantized the energy of harmonic oscillators in an idealized 'black body' enclosure, and obtained a black body radiation spectrum which agreed with experiment/observation; So was born Quantum theory.

[beecee]

The Planck scale is certainly not necessarily the smallest of any of its measureable quantities that can ever exist, and is simply a classification derived from other recognised constants of nature, including the speed of light. It is most certainly not any fundamental aspect about the nature of space or spacetime. The Planck units of length. time and volume, do though correspond with what we know as the quantum realm and which is sometimes referred to as the quantum foam. 

The other aspect I have observed in this thread, is the claims of this being proven, and that being proven. Obviously most contributing to a science forum, or having any interest in the scientific discipline, would realize that as part of the scientific method, nothing is really proven in science, and is simply made more and more certain, based on the availability of further and further observations, as technology allows.

The third aspect of this thread I would like to comment on is that as I have mentioned before, perhaps it is a definition of "nothing" that needs to be appraised...perhaps the quantum foam from whence the BB and space and time as we know them evolved, is this nothing some are so taken in by. 

 

[Conjurer]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

Nothing is extremely stable.
As systems tend towards the lowest energy state to achieve stability, a state of zero energy would have no way to progress, as it is already in its lowest energy/highest stability state. The fact that the universe is expanding ( and expansion is accelerating ) implies a non -zero Cosmological Constant. IE the universe is NOT at the lowest energy state, but a false non-zero state.

Virtual particle pairs are proof that 'something' can come from nothing.
During the time they are in existence, their effects can be detected, yet, after the time they are allotted by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, they return their mass/energy, and nothing remains. They are the very definition of a Quantum fluctuation.

And Conjurer is an example of the confusion that results when you get your education from TV programs, YouTube and pop-sci books, while never having read a Physics or Math book.
Max Planck had nothing to do with Planck units or particle accelerators.
He made a wild guess, and quantized the energy of harmonic oscillators in an idealized 'black body' enclosure, and obtained a black body radiation spectrum which agreed with experiment/observation; So was born Quantum theory.

I am actually currently a senior studying to be a math teacher.  I think the problem is that the general public is so ill-knowledgeable of what these physicist say during programs that they just easily cast it out as nonsense.  But, if you have a better understanding of the research done explained in their books about it, you will find that there are actual scientific reasons for it which stay consistent among a large variety of them.

For starters, quantum fluctuations are scientifically accepted to allow the free production of energy among the Big Bang cosmology community.  That is the reason they believe the Big Bang most likely started this way.  The biggest exception to this idea is Michio Kaku's theory that the universe would end up having to be half matter and anti-matter.  No one has been able to answer this question as to why there is only mostly matter in the universe, since it is accepted among them that these free particle pairs could continue to exist interdependently from each other with a total gain of energy (not considering they have a negative energy of mass, according to Allen Guth).

That is where this question comes from and originates, and that is the reason why he always repeats it every time he is on TV.  I believe the answer to this problem is that it is possible that there was not a quantum fluctuation between particle pairs, and a single point like particle could exist.  Then that would do away with the problem of anti-matter not being able to be accounted for in the universe.  Furthermore, I believe the lack of abundance of anti-matter in the universe actually proves that the Big Bang did not originate from a particle pair fluctuation.  It would have had to have been a single particle fluctuation.       

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

You would have to find the scientific papers they used to make the discovery.  Brian Green wrote an entire book about it.  My information is second had information from him.

The discovery was purely made by measuring the red shifts of galaxies. So I have to assume you misunderstood it (along with so many other things you have garbled).

 

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

For starters, quantum fluctuations are scientifically accepted to allow the free production of energy among the Big Bang cosmology community. 

Sigh. Really?

Citation needed. Again.

I assume that, as usual, none will be forthcoming.

 

[Conjurer]

1 hour ago, beecee said:

The Planck scale is certainly not necessarily the smallest of any of its measureable quantities that can ever exist, and is simply a classification derived from other recognised constants of nature, including the speed of light. It is most certainly not any fundamental aspect about the nature of space or spacetime. The Planck units of length. time and volume, do though correspond with what we know as the quantum realm and which is sometimes referred to as the quantum foam. 

Do you have a reference for this?  The only physics principal that goes smaller than the Planck Scale is String Theory.  That is a problem String Theory has, since a string could never be scientifically discovered for that very reason.

If the universe started out as purely nothing, then there would have had to have been an infinite amount of energy available at the Planck Scale of its creation, because the Big Bang would have never had been able to have any measurable influence outside of that point of existence.  It could be possible that the Big Bang could have never happened if it didn't contain an infinite amount of energy at the Planck Scale.    

21 minutes ago, Strange said:

The discovery was purely made by measuring the red shifts of galaxies. So I have to assume you misunderstood it (along with so many other things you have garbled).

Do you have a reference for this?  I take it you found the paper and looked at it yourself to come to this conclusion?

[Strange]

24 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Do you have a reference for this?  I take it you found the paper and looked at it yourself to come to this conclusion?

It is in the links you posted earlier.

Now, how about a reference that "they determined the amount of energy in space required for an individual Planck Unit of space" ?

[MigL]

Not necessarily, Conjurer.

Consider a quantum fluctuation, where energy is 'borrowed' from the false-zero energy level of the universe, in whatever form it may exist.
This quantum fluctuation is destined to exist for an extremely short time, according to the HUP.
But this quantum fluctuation puts this extremely small part of the pre-existing universe in an abnormally high energy state and a negative pressure condition, which triggers inflation.
From this point forward, the universe is gaining energy ( and resultant particle creation making up the current contents of the universe ) and losing energy ( as increasing negative gravitational potential due to expansion) such that the gain and loss are in perfect balance, and the net effect is zero energy

We have, in effect, created a new universe ( causally disconnected from the previous one ) from a quantum fluctuation.
At least that is how I understand the 'universe from nothing' hypothesis.

And no, I don't understand why there is a preponderance of matter over anti-matter, or why the annihilation/creation process would favor one over the other; But that is another question altogether.

Edited May 2, 2019 by MigL

[Sensei]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Max Planck didn't use Planck units to discover that.  The Planck Scale was the discovery he made from doing preliminary experiments used to determine how to make particle accelerators while using different units.

What a nonsense. There was no particle accelerators at that time, yet!

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What a nonsense. There was no particle accelerators at that time, yet!

Indeed. It actually came out of his work solving the problem of the black body spectrum. 

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Max Planck didn't use Planck units to discover that.  The Planck Scale was the discovery he made from doing preliminary experiments used to determine how to make particle accelerators while using different units.

Planck units predate the first accelerator by 30 years. There’s no need to use these units for accelerators.

Quote

The goal of Big Bang cosmology is to be able to describe the Big Bang closer and closer to the moment it started.  The title of this thread was "why is there something rather than nothing".  Then the question was asked, "why is nothing unstable", at the start of the thread.  Then I stated that it has been attempted already to try to quantize nothing.  In order to do that, Planck Units would have to be involved, unless you know of some better method or idea.  That is the closest you can get to nothing in physics which can make physical predictions about the universe.  The new idea, which has already been going around in physics, is that a point like particle in the Planck Scale blows up into infinity according to the current laws of physics.  

The alternative theory is that particle pairs come into existence out of nothing to create something from nothing, but we have already had a long discussion on how you don't agree with that theory already a while back ago.  It was the most popular reason for many years among the top Big Bang cosmologist. 

No physics, then. 

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Do you have a reference for this?  The only physics principal that goes smaller than the Planck Scale is String Theory.  That is a problem String Theory has, since a string could never be scientifically discovered for that very reason.

We have absolutely nothing to verify that any Planck scale is the lowest possible measurable. Again it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down, and where quantum effects take over, and partly why scientists do not accept the singularity of infinite quantities such as density and spacetime curvature at the center of BH's or the BB for that matter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_units

"In particle physics and physical cosmology, Planck units are a set of units of measurement defined exclusively in terms of five universal physical constants, in such a manner that these five physical constants take on the numerical value of 1 when expressed in terms of these units.

Originally proposed in 1899 by German physicist Max Planck, these units are also known as natural units because the origin of their definition comes only from properties of nature and not from any human construct. Planck units are only one system of several systems of natural units, but Planck units are not based on properties of any prototype object or particle (that would be arbitrarily chosen), but rather on only the properties of free space. Planck units have significance for theoretical physics since they simplify several recurring algebraic expressions of physical law by nondimensionalization. They are relevant in research on unified theories such as quantum gravity."

or this......The Planck length LP is defined by taking the constants of nature and combining them in such a way that their units combine to give a length.  Divide the minuscule Planck length by the speed of light (which is pretty big) and you get a really tiny unit of time, the Planck time, tP, which is:

from https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module6_Planck.htm

[Carrock]

10 hours ago, Conjurer said:

Furthermore, I believe the lack of abundance of anti-matter in the universe actually proves that the Big Bang did not originate from a particle pair fluctuation.  It would have had to have been a single particle fluctuation.

Really? CP-symmetry violation produces matter/antimatter asymmetry.

The currently known violations are insufficient to produce the observed asymmetry but lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

 

[Conjurer]

20 hours ago, beecee said:

We have absolutely nothing to verify that any Planck scale is the lowest possible measurable. Again it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down, and where quantum effects take over, and partly why scientists do not accept the singularity of infinite quantities such as density and spacetime curvature at the center of BH's or the BB for that matter.

You said it yourself, "it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down".  The point of where they break down is when they produce infinity in the equations.  

 

13 hours ago, Carrock said:

The currently known violations are insufficient to produce the observed asymmetry but lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

I believe that lack of evidence is definitely proof of nonexistence when it has been sufficiently sought after.  If anti-matter bodies existed in the universe, then there would be huge anti-matter/matter explosions of energy, which simply don't exist.  Even if they were separated into different galaxies by some unusual happenstance, galaxy on galaxy collisions have never been observed to be violent enough to show that.  

14 hours ago, Carrock said:

Really? CP-symmetry violation produces matter/antimatter asymmetry.

I believe it is still a problem in quantum physics where antimatter is shown to be equally stable as normal matter.  Then real anti-matter which has been observed and researched on is not nearly as stable as normal matter.  Then it decays quickly in the lab, and it is difficult to sustain.  Quantum Mechanics may just be unfit to be able to properly describe the difference between normal matter and anti-matter.

[beecee]

Just now, Conjurer said:

You said it yourself, "it is simply where our laws of physics and GR break down".  The point of where they break down is when they produce infinity in the equations.  

 Other then the unlikely ridiculous scenario of infinite spacetime density and curvature...which is why cosmologists now reject that position.

 

[Conjurer]

On 5/2/2019 at 4:49 PM, MigL said:

Consider a quantum fluctuation, where energy is 'borrowed' from the false-zero energy level of the universe, in whatever form it may exist.

I never studied or read about how energy can be borrowed from a false-zero energy state, so I have no clue what any of that means or where it comes from.  I wouldn't be able to supply any input or suggestions from that, even to myself.

25 minutes ago, beecee said:

 Other then the unlikely ridiculous scenario of infinite spacetime density and curvature...which is why cosmologists now reject that position.

Infinities are inevitable in Big Bang Cosmology, long before someone would get to the Planck Scale.  Like I mentioned earlier, I believe that the Pauli Exclusion Principal could possibly avoid points of infinite energy if it was included in those types of situations.  It would seem like a high degree of resonant energy producing higher forms of particles should be made exempt from creating points of infinite energy due to the Pauli Exclusion Principal if it was included in something like String Theory which goes beyond the standard model of particle physics. 

Theoretically, if the Big Bang did consist of infinite energy at one time, the influence of Strings Should be able to be detected in the CMB, since the Big Bang could probe below the Planck Scale from that.  I think the Pauli Exclusion Principal would have had to play a huge role in the early universe, and it may just be vastly underestimated.  The reason being that once energy is intensified it can convert to electrons, and electrons would be subject to the Pauli Exclusion Principal.  Then it should be impossible to have an infinite number of electrons at a point due to the very nature of the principal itself.   

Edited May 3, 2019 by Conjurer

[Carrock]

24 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

14 hours ago, Carrock said:

The currently known violations are insufficient to produce the observed asymmetry but lack of evidence is not proof of nonexistence.

 

I believe that lack of evidence is definitely proof of nonexistence when it has been sufficiently sought after.  If anti-matter bodies existed in the universe, then there would be huge anti-matter/matter explosions of energy, which simply don't exist.

You're just making things up.

CP violation is a subject of current research and certainly hasn't been 'sufficiently sought after.'

If you'd read the reference I gave - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#Matter–antimatter_imbalance you wouldn't find anything to even hint at the existence of 'anti-matter bodies.'

 

38 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

Then real anti-matter which has been observed and researched on is not nearly as stable as normal matter.  Then it decays quickly in the lab, and it is difficult to sustain.

No evidence exists of presumed stable particles such as antielectrons (aka positrons) or antiprotons decaying. Such particles can be contained indefinitely.

[Conjurer]

9 minutes ago, Carrock said:

You're just making things up.

CP violation is a subject of current research and certainly hasn't been 'sufficiently sought after.'

If you'd read the reference I gave - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CP_violation#Matter–antimatter_imbalance you wouldn't find anything to even hint at the existence of 'anti-matter bodies.'

From the first line of your link, "The universe is made chiefly of matter, rather than consisting of equal parts of matter and antimatter as might be expected."

In some circles, it hasn't been made clear what the quantum fluctuation actually was that was presumed to cause the big bang.  That was a random occurrence of a particle pair being created from spacetime itself.  As far as I know, that is entirely the reason why an equal amount of antimatter should even be expected to exist in the first place.  If the big bang didn't start in a traditional sense from a quantum fluctuation, then it would seem like it shouldn't be expected, and it wouldn't be necessary for there to be means for it to be prevented.

14 minutes ago, Carrock said:

No evidence exists of presumed stable particles such as antielectrons (aka positrons) or antiprotons decaying. Such particles can be contained indefinitely.

 I think you are correct about that, but higher forms of particles like baryons and atoms begin to really start having this problem.  For instance, an atom of anti-hydrogen would be extremely unstable, and I don't think it has been figured how that could be made possible in a lab.

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, Conjurer said:

 

 I think you are correct about that, but higher forms of particles like baryons and atoms begin to really start having this problem.  For instance, an atom of anti-hydrogen would be extremely unstable, and I don't think it has been figured how that could be made possible in a lab.

 

Quote

First, they injected cold liquid helium droplets with hydrogen (H2) molecules. This caused the mixture to form clusters with a neutral charge.

Next, they exposed these H2-infused droplets to an electron beam, and that caused some of the hydrogen molecules to ionise, and be flung out into the surrounding vacuum as negatively charged hydrogen ions.

Soon, nearby hydrogen molecules started clustering around the negatively charged ions, and the researchers discovered that these newly formed groups could boast a few, or many molecules each.

As is often the case with the most elusive structures in particle physics, these negatively charged hydrogen clusters existed only for an incredibly fleeting moment - several microseconds (1 microsecond = 0.000001 seconds). https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-have-created-a-new-form-of-hydrogen

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Conjurer said:

Infinities are inevitable in Big Bang Cosmology, long before someone would get to the Planck Scale.

Actually infinities generally point to the failure of the theory and why are generally abhorred in physics. The BB of course only applies to the observable universe. http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html

[MigL]

A quantum fluctuation is governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
The StnDev(E) * StnDev(t) >= hbar/2 , where StnDev is standard deviation, E is energy, t is time and h is Planck's constant, tells us that for brief periods of time , energy can vary according to this relation. This energy is 'borrowed' and must be 'repaid' after this time has elapsed. Whether this energy leads to virtual pair creation, or real pair creation, is simply dependent on the amount of energy. 

This is all available in any first/second year Quantum Mechanics course or textbook.
You should read one.

The Pauli Exclusion Principle DOES play a role in mitigating collapse of astronomical objects.
Electron degeneracy pressure, due to the exclusion principle, keeps white dwarf stars from collapsing further.
And neutron degeneracy keeps  more massive neutron stars from collapsing under their own crushing gravity.
But above a certain mass there is no known effect that can keep even more massive stars from collapsing into a Black Hole, with the resulting un-physical singularity, and Event Horizon.

This is also to be found in introductory Cosmology textbooks.
Read one of those also before you embarrass yourself further by talking about principles you have no clue about.