Small to Large? [Split from What determined the inital state of the universe?]

[AbstractDreamer]

Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa?

Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size".

In the sense that CAUSE is due to some physical laws:

Quantum fluctuations CAUSE real and virtual particles.  Real particles cause leptons, quarks, bosons.  Leptons and quarks cause protons, neutrons and electrons.  Protons neutrons electrons cause hydrogen helium and carbon atoms.  Hydrogen, iron and oxygen cause stars, planets, and water.  Stars, planets and water cause  galaxies, solar systems, and oceans.

Galaxies do not cause stars. Stars do not cause hydrogen.  Hydrogen does not cause protons.  Protons do not cause quarks.  Quarks do not cause real particles.  Real particles do not cause quantum fluctuations.

The direction of time is forwards?

The direction of cause is bigwards?

 

 

[Strange]

Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components.

The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.

 

[studiot]

16 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa?

Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size".

In the sense that CAUSE is due to some physical laws:

Quantum fluctuations CAUSE real and virtual particles.  Real particles cause leptons, quarks, bosons.  Leptons and quarks cause protons, neutrons and electrons.  Protons neutrons electrons cause hydrogen helium and carbon atoms.  Hydrogen, iron and oxygen cause stars, planets, and water.  Stars, planets and water cause  galaxies, solar systems, and oceans.

Galaxies do not cause stars. Stars do not cause hydrogen.  Hydrogen does not cause protons.  Protons do not cause quarks.  Quarks do not cause real particles.  Real particles do not cause quantum fluctuations.

The direction of time is forwards?

The direction of cause is bigwards?

 

 

This is a tantalising muse +1

But I am not sure it is on topic, and in any case I think it deserves a thread of its own so I am going to ask the mods if they agree.

 

However I think it is worth discussing if the underlying premise is true.

How about aggregation v dispersion ?

There is a continual chicken and egg cycle of aggregation and dispersion in our universe and entropy increase usually favours dispersion.

[dimreepr]

32 minutes ago, studiot said:

However I think it is worth discussing if the underlying premise is true.

If an elephant sits on you, there's two reasons why not.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If an elephant sits on you, there's two reasons why not.

But the fact that the element has mass is due to the strong force binging the quarks in the nucleus. And the reason it is solid is because of the Pauli exclusion principle forcing the electrons into separate energy levels.

But we only know those things because we have built ever-larger particle colliders. 🤷‍♂️

[AbstractDreamer]

24 minutes ago, Strange said:

Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components.

The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.

 

Well the formation of, for example, gold atoms requires high energy, and while a "large" cause such as a neutron star collision provides the energy, it is fundamentally still the physical laws that govern subatomic particles of protons, neutrons, and electrons ( + high energy) that creates the gold atom.

Its not so much the physical laws that explain a neutron star collision that creates the gold atom. GR will explain how two neutron stars collide, but im not sure how much it helps with describing how gold is formed with a bunch of neurons, protons and electrons.

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

But the fact that the element has mass is due to the strong force binging the quarks in the nucleus. And the reason it is solid is because of the Pauli exclusion principle forcing the electrons into separate energy levels.

But we only know those things because we have built ever-larger particle colliders. 🤷‍♂️

Indeed, if the universe was created by the big bang; then it must have contained everything.

[MigL]

Interesting premise, but it doesn't seem to hold under closer scrutiny.
In addition to what Strange mentioned ( the death of stars producing the heavy elements needed for life and planets ),  stellar 'explosions' also cause the 'shock waves' in interstellar gas that spurs new star formation. Or would you argue that is a 'little' effect leading to a 'bigger' one ?

But I suppose the largest effect, the vacuum energy of the whole universe, being responsible for the vacuum fluctuations at the beginning of your small to big' sequence, should be considered also.
This non-zero vacuum energy also contributes, through the Cosmological Constant, to the expansion of the universe, and the voids/clusters of large scale structure, which, through gravitational binding, contribute to structure at smaller and smaller scales; even concentrations of gas/dust for galactic > stellar > planetary formation.

Highly dependent on viewpoint, I suppose...

[studiot]

45 minutes ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Well the formation of, for example, gold atoms requires high energy, and while a "large" cause such as a neutron star collision provides the energy, it is fundamentally still the physical laws that govern subatomic particles of protons, neutrons, and electrons ( + high energy) that creates the gold atom.

Its not so much the physical laws that explain a neutron star collision that creates the gold atom. GR will explain how two neutron stars collide, but im not sure how much it helps with describing how gold is formed with a bunch of neurons, protons and electrons.

Yes indeed, energy also plays a part.

Those who study Thermodynamics will know that there are two competing thermodynamic drivers, (energy and entropy) which usually pull in opposite directions.

56 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

If an elephant sits on you, there's two reasons why not.

We don't have elephants in Somerset.

[Strange]

12 minutes ago, studiot said:

We don't have elephants in Somerset.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26294007

[joigus]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-bristol-26294007

Elephants are everywhere. That must mean something.

Nice topic.

I think it's to do with the arrow of time. When you try to solve the wave equation in spherical coordinates, there are solutions that go inwards that must be discarded just because you know that there is an arrow of time, as the inward-going solutions can be obtained by taking the negative radius. Waves only propagate outwards; never inwards. That's very mysterious. A definite direction of time is closely related with a definite orientation inside-outside. But I'm just guessing. I think it's an interesting question.

Edited May 16, 2020 by joigus

[uncool]

3 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Why is it apparent that small things determine how big things work and not vice versa?

Because big things are made of small things. Alternatively: because large spaces can be broken down to small spaces, in a way that respects the laws of physics.

A little more technically, because the laws of physics are local. They are differential equations where all derivatives of things at a point are determined by values of those things at the same point.

"Why" for that can be explained by relativity: things can only be affected by what has happened within the past light-cone, which is necessarily small when time is short.

[Ghideon]

9 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

The direction of cause is bigwards?

Interesting! Maybe Hawking radiation fits into this? AFAIK Hawking radiation, if it exists, is generated near even horizons of black holes. Is a supermassive black hole causing a small quantum effects near the event horizon an example of something (really) large causing something small?

 

Edited May 16, 2020 by Ghideon
better wording

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Ghideon said:

Interesting! Maybe Hawking radiation fits into this? AFAIK Hawking radiation, if it exists, is generated near even horizons of black holes. Is a supermassive black hole causing a small quantum effects near the event horizon an example of something (really) large causing something small?

But that is an interesting example, because larger black holes create less Hawking radiation. In fact only implausibly small ones would generate measurable output.

[Ghideon]

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

In fact only implausibly small ones would generate measurable output.

Ok, good point.

I'll continue my naive thoughts and try even bigger then: the Big Rip. Assume the Big Rip model correctly describes the future of the universe. The whole universe needs to reach some specific state before being able to destroy very small and stubborn particles. How does that count? 
(About 50% serious / 50% joke)

[joigus]

10 hours ago, studiot said:

There is a continual chicken and egg cycle of aggregation and dispersion in our universe and entropy increase usually favours dispersion.

Studiot, could you elaborate on this, please? Chicken and egg seems to imply indefinite causation, a 'what comes first' kind of question.

In case anybody is interested, I am too, and I do think this topic is worth discussing. Any insight would be welcome.

10 hours ago, Strange said:

Interesting question. Maybe it is just the way we think about it? Breaking things down to components.

The collapse of stars, and the collision of neutrons stars, are required to create most of the different types atoms in the universe. So I'm not sure your conjecture is universally true.

 

 

9 hours ago, MigL said:

Interesting premise, but it doesn't seem to hold under closer scrutiny.
In addition to what Strange mentioned ( the death of stars producing the heavy elements needed for life and planets ),  stellar 'explosions' also cause the 'shock waves' in interstellar gas that spurs new star formation. Or would you argue that is a 'little' effect leading to a 'bigger' one ?

But I suppose the largest effect, the vacuum energy of the whole universe, being responsible for the vacuum fluctuations at the beginning of your small to big' sequence, should be considered also.
This non-zero vacuum energy also contributes, through the Cosmological Constant, to the expansion of the universe, and the voids/clusters of large scale structure, which, through gravitational binding, contribute to structure at smaller and smaller scales; even concentrations of gas/dust for galactic > stellar > planetary formation.

Highly dependent on viewpoint, I suppose...

I'm in doubt, to tell you the truth. Your points are well taken, but emergent properties (pressure, temperature,...) always go from small to big, not the other way around. I would be more convinced is there were a single argument that the mass of the Higgs (or any other one of the free parameters of the Standard Model, mixing angles, etc.) came from some kind of cosmological average, boundary conditions... I don't know what to think about this one, to be honest. I do think the OP has a point.

Edited May 16, 2020 by joigus
changed "electron" to "Higgs"

[studiot]

23 minutes ago, joigus said:

Studiot, could you elaborate on this, please? Chicken and egg seems to imply indefinite causation, a 'what comes first' kind of question.

In case anybody is interested, I am too, and I do think this topic is worth discussing. Any insight would be welcome.

 

I am thinking about the OP question and the balance between aggregation or accretion processes (bigwards)  contrasted with dispersion processes which break thing down and spread them out.

The OP seems to favour the former, but we actually encounter both.
There is also the issue of the observed expansion of the Universe and therefore the question of diminution of density.

My chicken and egg comes from the idea that coagulating small things makes big things ; disintegrating big things makes small ones.
An apparently endless cycle repeated in so many ways in Nature. Geology being a good example.

So yes it's a which came first the chicken or the egg situation.

The Ring of Ritornel or the Die of Alea, if you know that story.

BTW did you see my reply to your recent post in the quantum section ?

 

10 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 

Why is cause and effect noncommutative with respect to "size".

..........

The direction of cause is bigwards?

 

 

 

[joigus]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

The Ring of Ritornel or the Die of Alea, if you know that story.

I can't say I do, I'm sorry.

I'm thinking of taking a back sit on this one. I'm not ready for this discussion... just yet. I want to read more arguments.

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

BTW did you see my reply to your recent post in the quantum section ?

Yes, I did. I had nothing to add to that one. Yes and no just doesn't do it for me. It's just that I want to take a break from fundamentals of QM for a while. I've had so much arguing for years with my friends from university... There's been so much nonsense said and written about it through decades that I feel overwhelmed.

It is entirely possible that I misinterpreted. Occasionally I need to take a step back and let everything sink in.

Edited May 16, 2020 by joigus
addition

[AbstractDreamer]

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

I am thinking about the OP question and the balance between aggregation or accretion processes (bigwards)  contrasted with dispersion processes which break thing down and spread them out.

The OP seems to favour the former, but we actually encounter both.
There is also the issue of the observed expansion of the Universe and therefore the question of diminution of density.

 

My opinion has no valid basis at all.  I was reading another topic when the thought popped into my head, but now I realise the terms I use are rather ambiguous and poorly explained.  But I guess they were vague enough to make more learned minds think a bit.  I think my use of stars, atoms and quantum particles misses something I couldnt quite formulate into words.

What does bigwards even mean?   If something disperses, it would have a bigger volume, surface area etc, but smaller density -  both bigwards and smallwards.

The chicken and the egg things brings to my mind the problem about space expansion and dark energy.

Does dark energy cause space expansion, or does space expansion cause dark energy, or are they equivalent like mass and energy?

 

2 hours ago, Ghideon said:

Interesting! Maybe Hawking radiation fits into this? AFAIK Hawking radiation, if it exists, is generated near even horizons of black holes. Is a supermassive black hole causing a small quantum effects near the event horizon an example of something (really) large causing something small?

 

Is a black hole considered a singular, indivisible object such that Hawking radiation is emitted from "the entirely of the black hole" rather than a point close to its event horizon?

Of course large things can make small things to happen.  A big star can emit a photon.  A big whale can displace water molecules.  But I think the "cause" I'm referring to is "reason" or "explanation" or "why" something happens.  Why the proton is emitted - what physics, or why the water molecules are displaced.  This WHY or CAUSE is explained by understanding something on a smaller scale and not (AFAIK) on the bigger scale.

The particle emitted from the black hole is the effect, but the CAUSE is hawking radiation, NOT the black hole.  Another effect is the decay of the black hole.  The direction of cause is bigwards!

Edited May 16, 2020 by AbstractDreamer

[Mordred]

3 hours ago, AbstractDreamer said:

 

The chicken and the egg things brings to my mind the problem about space expansion and dark energy.

Does dark energy cause space expansion, or does space expansion cause dark energy, or are they equivalent like mass and energy?

Some dynamics cannot be seperated into chicken and egg debates. The Cosmological constant is one example. Evidence is that it started at the moment of the BB. However it is only a contributor to expansion it isn't the sole cause to expansion.

Both matter and radiation also contribute.

A little piece of advise reading several of your recent threads.

Focus on one question at a time. You cannot truly learn a topic by numerous random questions all at the same time. Study each question in detail instead of relying on short replies.

 

[AbstractDreamer]

On 5/17/2020 at 4:14 AM, Mordred said:

A little piece of advise reading several of your recent threads.

Focus on one question at a time. You cannot truly learn a topic by numerous random questions all at the same time. Study each question in detail instead of relying on short replies.

 

Well unfortunately for me, I have tried to "truly" learn some physics previously, but I came across unscalable walls and bottomless pits.

The biggest obstacle for me was the mathematics.  I simply don't understand them.  I can follow instructions.  I can find the area bounded by two hyperbolic functions.  I can follow matrix calculus operations.  But I can't understand them.  They have no "meaning".  There are mathematical techniques and tricks that are used that I can accept are true, but I cannot logically comprehend them and cannot apply logical proof to the equations once they are added.    In addition I have questions about the legitimate use of some mathematics.  There are some assumptions that are taken for granted, or at least rarely mentioned, but these assumptions underlay ALL the conclusions that are drawn from the results the mathematics give.  Just for example, off the top of my head, integration relies on a coordinate system that is "uniform", that is the gap between integers are consistent, but what if it isnt?  That throws integration out of the window.  Any integration with respect to Time from zero to infinity, assumes that it is uniform and consistent from the beginning and  forever  What evidence do we have this is so?  Sure you can calculate the area under a curve...but only if you assume your axes are consistent and uniform.  What if the gap between 2 and 3 was larger than the gap between 1 and 2, such that 1 +2 =/= 3?  We already know space expands, that is, the axes are stretched.  Are they stretched evenly everywhere at the same time?  Do two volumes of space mutually exclusive from each other's observable universe and future universe stretch at the same rate?  How does space expansion reconcile with an isotropic universe?

The second biggest obstacle for me was the scope.  If you want to "truly" know one thing, you have to know ten other things first, the rabbit hole never ends.  I am truly awestruck by how vast the scope of physics is.  It is like running up a mountain of infinite size, and everytime you summit a local maxima, there's ten more summits behind.

The third problem was time and attention.  I don't have the time or the attention or even the ability to learn all the things I need to know to answer my own questions.

The bottom line is, I am resigned to forever never truly understanding anything, and forever asking questions like a child.

Edited May 18, 2020 by AbstractDreamer

[Mordred]

Well any curve fitting can be done with the infinitisimal linearizations of differential geometry. I consider this one of the best starting points into understanding physics.

[AbstractDreamer]

But if the curve is a quantum curve, wouldn't the smooth manifold of Reimannian geometry be an unsuitable model?

[Mordred]

The Langrangian in QM and QFT or even GR applies the same principle. 

A good example is in GR if you take  a curve you can find infinitisimal portions of that curve that is approximately flat. 

[studiot]

1 hour ago, AbstractDreamer said:

Well unfortunately for me, I have tried to "truly" learn some physics previously, but I came across unscalable walls and bottomless pits.

The biggest obstacle for me was the mathematics.  I simply don't understand them.  I can follow instructions.  I can find the area bounded by two hyperbolic functions.  I can follow matrix calculus operations.  But I can't understand them.  They have no "meaning".  There are mathematical techniques and tricks that are used that I can accept are true, but I cannot logically comprehend them and cannot apply logical proof to the equations once they are added.    In addition I have questions about the legitimate use of some mathematics.  There are some assumptions that are taken for granted, or at least rarely mentioned, but these assumptions underlay ALL the conclusions that are drawn from the results the mathematics give.  Just for example, off the top of my head, integration relies on a coordinate system that is "uniform", that is the gap between integers are consistent, but what if it isnt?  That throws integration out of the window.  Any integration with respect to Time from zero to infinity, assumes that it is uniform and consistent from the beginning and  forever  What evidence do we have this is so?  Sure you can calculate the area under a curve...but only if you assume your axes are consistent and uniform.  What if the gap between 2 and 3 was larger than the gap between 1 and 2, such that 1 +2 =/= 3?  We already know space expands, that is, the axes are stretched.  Are they stretched evenly everywhere at the same time?  Do two volumes of space mutually exclusive from each other's observable universe and future universe stretch at the same rate?  How does space expansion reconcile with an isotropic universe?

The second biggest obstacle for me was the scope.  If you want to "truly" know one thing, you have to know ten other things first, the rabbit hole never ends.  I am truly awestruck by how vast the scope of physics is.  It is like running up a mountain of infinite size, and everytime you summit a local maxima, there's ten more summits behind.

The third problem was time and attention.  I don't have the time or the attention or even the ability to learn all the things I need to know to answer my own questions.

The bottom line is, I am resigned to forever never truly understanding anything, and forever asking questions like a child.

 

There are some good questions here. +1

But take heart; no one else has fully answered them either.

In particular there is no such thing as a quantum curve, since a curve is continuous.
Nevertheless Mathematics can cope - it is Physics that lags.
There is such a thing as Discrete Mathematics (sometimes called Concrete Mathematics) that applies to non continuous situations.
There is even a well developed theory of integration and other calculus in Discrete Maths. Obviously it differs from the traditional Maths of Continuit - usually called Analysis.
Continuity is closely allied to connectivity. There is such a thing as a 'disconnected curve' in Analysis.

But no one knows the answer to the question is the physical universe continuous or granular (discrete) ?