Heat death + dark energy, in regards to the quantum vacuum.

[Sorcerer]

So I would like to know, what would it mean for classical physics and heat death, in an exponentially increasing space, with regards to the quantum vacuum?

Would the probability of virtual particles becoming "real" increase (since the volume of space increases), as the work being able to be provided by real particles decreases?

Also as an aside. Are event horizons created by Hubble volumes, where information cannot be exchanged between points in space time due to them receeding away from each other faster than the speed of light, the same as those created by gravity in a black hole?

If so, would that mean one Hubble volume could evaporate via Hawking radiation into another?

[Mordred]

by definition heat death means there is no potential energy difference between particles to perform work. So even quantum processes will not be able to perform work. wiki has a decent writeup on heat death you might note the section that states that there is a difference between heath death and the vacuum state that is said to create the universe. In particular gravity itself is not in thermal equilibrium. Where in heat death it would be. Please keep in mind heat death is highly conjectural no one really knows the answers.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe

 

-virtual particle production in inflationary or expansion requires potential energy differences or anistropies from one region to another, the more uniform space becomes the less virtual particle production, how they become real is in situations where the particles cannot annihilate such as Unruh radiation with cosmological horizons ad Parker radiation which is different regions via quantum tunneling. keep in mind the virtual particle must also be able to gain enough energy to become real.

 

The Hubble sphere is not the limit of our universe, the Hubble sphere is where recessive velocity =c, the observable universe has objects with recessive velocity of 3c, However recessive velocity depends on separation distance v=Hd

 

here is a good article covering much of the confusions in regards to superluminal recessive velocities

 

http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

Edited July 26, 2014 by Mordred

[Sorcerer]

I was just wondering about event hoizons, since my limited understanding of relativity, is that acceleration away from and object and that due to gravity are essentially the same. So, an event horzion is an event hoizon, regardless of the source. IE, a hubble volume event horizon and a black hole event horizon are essentially the same.

I was applying this to the eventual fate of the universe, with regards to dark energy. Where eventually all particles would be contained in their own hubble volume and share an event horizon with every other particle.

From there I was looking at it as if it could be possible for all hubble volumes to evaporate via Hawking (Unruh?) radiation into each other, thus restoring the universe to a point where all the energy is able again to share information.

Essentially, I'm using my limited understanding to try to find a way which the heat death paradox could be reconciled and the age of the universe (redefined as more than just this one we observe now) essentially be infinite.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation

Edited July 31, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Mordred]

particles aren't are not moving at c at the Hubble sphere nor the cosmological event horizon. recessive velocity is an apparent velocity that depends on separation distance.

 

Hubble's law states the greater the distance the greater the recessive velocity.

[latex]v_{recessive}=H_0d[/latex].

 

what this means is that if you could magically teleport to the Hubble sphere you measured from Earth, you would find the same expansion rate as you would here on Earth. The Hubble sphere is also not the edge of the observable universe. The cosmological event horizon is. We measure recessive velocities of 3c at the further edges of the observable universe. This is not the same as the event horizon due to a BH as its not based on acceleration. In expansion the recessive velocity imparts no inertia upon objects. The space between galaxies simply increases.

 

There was a paper at one time on Unruh radiation due to observer horizons as one particle will fall out of the ability to be measured, but this isn't the same as the event horizon of the BH's Hawking-Hartle radiation. Though very similar. The balloon analogy will help better understand expansion, the second article will cover recessive velocity confusion.

 

http://www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy/ : A thorough write up on the balloon analogy used to describe expansion
http://tangentspace.info/docs/horizon.pdf :Inflation and the Cosmological Horizon by Brian Powell

[Sorcerer]

I can't quite see how they are different all 3 have the same effect, they all remove the ability to observe the object directly via light reflection/emission.

The only one I don't think can exist (afaik according to relativity) is the horzion created by a particle moving away by accelerating to faster than the speed of light. While the hubble event horizon and the black hole event horizon are effectively the inverse of each other. One is the expansive stretching of space away faster than the speed of light, the other is the contractive stretching of space away faster than the speed of light.

 

Are there equations describing these 3 event horizons? Are they different? Or does relativity only deal with the two types?

In the balloon analogy, the points are moving away from each other, while the points aren't moving, they are moving away from each other. What is the difference to an observer who sees this due to the expansion of space, due to movement or due to gravity??

The effect on the ability to exchange information via the reflection/emission of photons is the same, all 3 create event horizons.

I can see you're not the kind of person who would get upset at me for questioning you. I can see you are trying to help. My questions seem relevant to me though.

_________________________________

Ok I got around to reading the article you suggested:

I was applying this to the eventual fate of the universe, with regards to dark energy. Where eventually all particles would be contained in their own hubble volume and share an event horizon with every other particle.

Here I am talking about future event horzions. Not necessarily "our" future event horizon, but mutual future event horizons. Where everything, (no galaxies), only particles is receeding away from everything else at the speed of light (or greater).

This article is only every refering to galaxies, what happens when all particles are seperated into their most fundamental parts because of the expansion of space. Where the expansion of space over comes the forces which hold nuclei together. Where two photons which would otherwise be moving towards each other are now moving away from each other faster than the speed of light due to the accelerating expansion of the universe (dark energy).

1) Expansion does not a have speed, so we don't say that the universe expands at this or that speed.

 

2) Objects in space do have speeds, and it is possible for these speeds to exceed that of light. This is a consequence of an expanding

universe, is not unique to ination, and doesn't bother Prof. Einstein.

 

Edited August 1, 2014 by Sorcerer

[Mordred]

your still missing a few details, everywhere in the universe the rate of expansion is the same as far as we know, (outside of gravitationally bound system) that rate of expansion is 69 km/s/Mpc.(Hubble constant,-constant everywhere at a point in tike only) the faster than light rate of expansion simply means that to an observer looking past his Hubble horizon the recessive velocity Appears to be faster than light. It is not as it is a math relation of separation distance.

 

There is no mutual horizons, everyone's Hubble horizon or cosmological event horizon or particle horizon all depends on their location. No inertia is imparted to objects receeding from us, so they do not have speed due to expansion the term recessive velocity is a misnomer, (a consequence of Hubble not knowing why objects are moving from us). Were simply stuck with the term.

 

The equations are part of the FLRW metrics, Hubbles law equations are covered in the second article I posted. the other equations can be found in the advanced section tutorial of this calc (in terms of proper distance(distance today))

http://www.einsteins-theory-of-relativity-4engineers.com/LightCone7/LightCone.html

 

they are based from this article

Fundamental Aspects of the Expansion of the Universe and Cosmic Horizons (technical 154 page article excellent though)

http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0402278v1.pdf%5B/url

 

the important part to keep in mind is no object has an inertia greater than c, the greater than c velocity depends on a large separation distance not an actual rate objects are moving (observer dependent, location of observer included)

Edited August 3, 2014 by Mordred