Does the expansion of a quantum system of particles cause the creation of new space?

[geordief]

Suppose we find a region in space without (or practically  without) fields  and we introduce a system of quantum objects  which subsequently  fly apart  due to their mutual repulsion ( would protons  behave like that?)

 

Would the space between  the objects that made up the system be "new space" and would there be a new gravitational field  extending throughout it?

[Genady]

What is "quantum objects"? Where does the repulsion come from? A bit more specifics, if possible.

[geordief]

28 minutes ago, Genady said:

What is "quantum objects"? Where does the repulsion come from? A bit more specifics, if possible.

A group of protons that have been corralled together to the exclusion of other particles?

Would they repel each other and would the group fly apart so that the volume of space they were in expanded?

 

If that didn't happen with protons  could it work with other quantum objects(I suppose I was thinking of quantum particles,with only one kind such as a proton  for example  )

 As for why they might repel each other I don't know if they would**  but don't like charges repel and don't protons carry a charge?)

 

**my scientific education level is pretty low

Edited December 25, 2022 by geordief

[Genady]

So, we're talking about a bunch of ionized hydrogen atoms. Yes, they will repel each other electrostatically, and the group will fly apart.

They will move in space. It will be the same space as before. 

Change in their configuration will change a configuration of their gravitational field.

[Mordred]

The sistuation is a bit more complicated, the system of added particles may also collapse. As protons are used in the example the equation of state is w=0 which means they generate no pressure term. However matter can cause expansion but it can also collapse under self gravity.

the way to determine what will happen will depend on the mass density of the added protons compared to the critical density whose value is derived via matter particles with the same equation of state.

\[\rho_{crit} = \frac{3c^2H^2}{8\pi G}\] 

Edited December 25, 2022 by Mordred

[geordief]

19 minutes ago, Genady said:

So, we're talking about a bunch of ionized hydrogen atoms . Yes, they will repel each other electrostatically, and the group will fly apart.

They will move in space. It will be the same space as before. 

Change in their configuration will change a configuration of their gravitational field.

I am familiar  with the idea that as the universe expands ,then space expands (as per that the distance between non gravitationally bound  objects such as galaxies) in an isotropic(if that is the correct  term) way.

 

I wondered if there might be any parallel between that behaviour and the kind of  scenario I was presenting.

 

Would these "ionized hydrogen atoms" create space in the same way as in the expansion of the universe model?

[Genady]

1 minute ago, geordief said:

Would these "ionized hydrogen atoms" create space in the same way as in the expansion of the universe model?

No, they would not.

[Mordred]

yes but as I mentioned you an also have a system of particles that collapse under self gravity. 

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

I am familiar  with the idea that as the universe expands ,then space expands (as per that the distance between non gravitationally bound  objects such as galaxies) in an isotropic(if that is the correct  term) way.

 

I wondered if there might be any parallel between that behaviour and the kind of  scenario I was presenting.

 

Would these "ionized hydrogen atoms" create space in the same way as in the expansion of the universe model?

 

1 minute ago, Genady said:

No, they would not.

why not if your applying their effective equation of state as per the FLRW metric

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

why not if your applying their effective equation of state as per the FLRW metric

Because they move in this case under their electrostatic repulsion, not under their gravity.

[geordief]

11 minutes ago, Genady said:

No, they would not

Well how would  you tell the difference between the two situations?

Aren't distances between objects increasing in the same way?

 

Is "my"scenario  that of an explosion rather than isotropic expansion?

Does matter have to be continuously  created for an isotropic  expansion (or inflation?) to occur?

Edited December 25, 2022 by geordief

[Genady]

Expansion of space is a purely gravitational effect. When I walk away from the computer the distance between me and the computer increases. It has nothing to do with the space expansion.

Matter is not continuously created in the space expansion.

[Mordred]

13 minutes ago, Genady said:

Because they move in this case under their electrostatic repulsion, not under their gravity.

that depends on the effective equation of state w=0 and the critical density if you add enough protons in a small enough volume you can readily get a collapse

the calculated value I got assuming no previous rate of expansion with H=0 is

\[1.6-8*10^26 kg/meter\] that would be the critical density value without 

if you add precisely that amount the universe geometry would be perfectly Euclidean and hence static. However if you add less then the system expands and vise versa if the amount exceeds the critical density you will get a collapse.

 

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

Expansion of space is a purely gravitational effect. When I walk away from the computer the distance between me and the computer increases. It has nothing to do with the space expansion.

Matter is not continuously created in the space expansion.

that is incorrect expansion is not purely gravitational if it were every system would collapse under self gravity

you need to apply the equations of state for each particle species (radiation, matter Lambda to the fluid equations which entail the deceleration/acceleration equation of the FLRW metric which incorporate the thermodynamic contributions each particle species has

Edited December 25, 2022 by Mordred

[Genady]

Just now, Mordred said:

that depends on the effective equation of state w=0 and the critical density if you add enough protons in a small enough volume you can readily get a collapse

the calculated value I got assuming no previous rate of expansion with H=0 is

 

1.6−8∗1026kg/meter

that would be the critical density value without 

 

if you add precisely that amount the universe geometry would be perfectly Euclidean and hence static. However if you add less then the system expands and vise versa if the amount exceeds the critical density you will get a collapse.

 

You are absolutely right. It is, however, not what the OP question was about.

2 minutes ago, Mordred said:

if it were every system would collapse under self gravity

It depends on the initial conditions.

[MigL]

Fields ( EM or gravity ) will cause movement through space, which Genady is referring to, and answers the questionGeorief was asking about.

however in certain configurations, you could end up with a negative pressure situation which may cause spatial expansion, which is what Mordred is referring to.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by MigL

[Mordred]

53 minutes ago, Genady said:

You are absolutely right. It is, however, not what the OP question was about.

well as I stated the OP never specified the quantity of protons added so I didn't assume a quantity

50 minutes ago, MigL said:

Fields ( EM or gravity ) will cause movement through space, which Genady is referring to, and answers the questionGeorief was asking about.

however in certain configurations, you could end up with a negative pressure situation which may cause spatial expansion, which is what Mordred is referring to.

slight correction here as protons don't generate pressure. Replace it with the curvature term however in other cases one also applies the pressure term as is the case with radiation.

little FYI for everyone at the 10-{-43 sec} the mass density far exceeded the critical density which with femionic matter would have caused an instant collapse. However the system was also extremely hot and in thermal equilibrium where all particle species was so energetic to be relativistic. This lead to the negative pressure term that caused the initial expansion  to get to the symmetry breaking contributions leading to inflation. Inflation regarded as either due to inflaton or Higgs inflation the effective equations of state are identical in both cases.

for further clarity as I lost count on the number of people I've seen apply e=mc^2 for mass or energy and get incorrect results the full equation that would be needed to apply in this situation is the energy momentum relation 

\[E^2=(pc)^2+(m_0 c^2)^2\]

Edited December 25, 2022 by Mordred

[geordief]

9 hours ago, Genady said:

Matter is not continuously created in the space expansion

Are you referring to the ongoing  expansion of the universe?(at first I understood you to be referring  to the expansion of my system of protons-in the event that their configuration does not lead to a gravitational  collapse  which I had not  thought about in the OP)

 

If that is indeed what you are saying ,does this also apply to the inflationary period?

 

I was under the impression  that the universe may  have  begun with  a quantum  fluctuation where  the amount of matter  was initially very small

 

If so ,wouldn't the inflationary  period have created matter  so long as the inflation continued 

 

(I hope that that is something like the model but I have not studied this at all  and am just repeating  / (mis?)interpreting things I think I have heard in passing)

Edited December 26, 2022 by geordief

[Mordred]

neither inflation nor expansion create particles, expansion and inflation occur due to particle interactions. With inflation the two leading hypothesis for inflation is the quasi particle inflaton or the Higgs field. Both are viable though I don't believe anyone has ever observed an inflaton so in my own opinion I tend to favor the Higgs field. However that's only my opinion both are equally mathematically viable.

 The particles already exist in a state called thermal equilibrium in that state they are extremely short lived and highly energetic making them indistinct from one another until they drop out of thermal equilibrium. This occurs during symmetry breaking a subject that I have two threads currently active examining the related mathematics. One I have in speculation simply because some of the formulas are not typically found in textbooks but are proposed formulas from other peer review material. By thee rules of the forum I could readily consider them sufficient for mainstream but chose the Speculation forum simply to help avid confusion to other readers. (assuming they can follow the math, as I didn't include much in the way of explanation)

 Anyways both the inflaton field and the Higgs field incorporate the same Mexican hat potential, the potential energy at the top of the Mexican hat potential is the initial energy density. Inflation starts when the energy density starts a slow roll to the lower energy density we have today. The higher potential is oft refered to as the false vacuum. While its believed the true vacuum state we have today. The Inflation thread I have is currently in this forum for further detail.

 

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/128412-musings-of-a-mad-scientist-inflation-as-cosmological-constant/

 

this thread here has some of the mathematics I've been examining for both electroweak symmetry breaking and inflation I've been examining the slow roll itself as each stage should result in variations of the slow roll due to phase transitions. I'm still gathering the related formulas to put it all together so its layout is as I find the needed formulas lol so don't expect a clear cut order

 

 

Edited December 26, 2022 by Mordred

[Genady]

35 minutes ago, geordief said:

Are you referring to the ongoing  expansion of the universe?

Yes, I am. I understand that this is what you've referred to in:

10 hours ago, geordief said:

Does matter have to be continuously  created for an isotropic  expansion (or inflation?) to occur?

 

39 minutes ago, geordief said:

does this also apply to the inflationary period?

I don't know. There are many inflationary models on the market. I am referring to the standard Big Bang model, LCDM, and to the expansion which we observe.

[Mordred]

2 minutes ago, Genady said:

 

I don't know. There are many inflationary models on the market. I am referring to the standard Big Bang model, LCDM, and to the expansion which we observe.

The ASPIC library has narrowed down the number of viable inflationary models to 74 lol

[Genady]

3 minutes ago, Mordred said:

The ASPIC library has narrowed down the number of viable inflationary models to 74 lol

Phew

lol

[geordief]

12 minutes ago, Genady said:

Yes, I am. I understand that this is what you've referred to in:

 

I don't know. There are many inflationary models on the market. I am referring to the standard Big Bang model, LCDM, and to the expansion which we observe.

Seems  to me like  @Mordred is saying that no matter is created either in the inflationary or in the expansionary  period.(so I assume that as we "roll back" to  a smaller  and denser universe  the particles  just get smaller and more energetic. 

 

Anyway ,if it is the case  that the creation of matter **is not what distinguishes  the expansionary/inflationary models from "my " scenario where the protons   repel each other,what is /are the  differences?

Is my scenario (just) an explosion?

,Would it still be an explosion if done with particles that were of a comparable size to those in the ecpandionary-/inflationary period?(ie not with protons but with more primitive  particles)

**it doesn't happen in any scenario

Edited December 26, 2022 by geordief

[Genady]

2 minutes ago, geordief said:

the particles  just get smaller

No, they don't get smaller.

3 minutes ago, geordief said:

Is my scenario (just) an explosion?

Yes, it is.

The explosion occurs into the space. In expansion, the entire space is expanding.

[Mordred]

Think of the first state as a quark gluon plasma state. Electrons neutrinos etc are present including the entirety of the standard model of particles. The energy density equates to 10^{90} photons but that's simply a calculated equivalency. That quantity is conserved throughout the expansion history though as mentioned is simply an equivalency not the actual number of photons. As mentioned they are in a state of thermal equilibrium so they all become indistinct from photons.

 When the electroweak symmetry break occurs then the other particles start to become distinct into neutrinos, electrons etc. Atoms come much much later.

 

[geordief]

1 minute ago, Genady said:

No  they don't get smaller

I thought that as we went back in time that particles like protons  were torn apart and only existed as their constituent parts and at enormously high energies

[Mordred]

yes protons are composite particles so are neutrons I'm referring to the elementary particles that have no internal structure any composie particle would be incredibly short lived due to the high density and resulting scattering

Edited December 26, 2022 by Mordred