sunshaker Posted October 22, 2014 Posted October 22, 2014 Vacuum energy is an underlying background energy that exists in space throughout the entire Universe. One contribution to the vacuum energy may be from virtual particles which are thought to be particle pairs that blink into existence and then annihilate in a timespan too short to observe. They are expected to do this everywhere, throughout the Universe.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy Are these virtual particles but universes many orders of magnitude smaller than our own, To us blinking into existence in a time span to short for us to observe, But universes just like ours, with all the physics/science and life that exists within ours. Our own universe but a virtual particle in another universe many orders of magnitude larger than our own. Perhaps each universe expanding until meeting/touch another expanding universe that touch and then annihilate each other like particle pairs.
Mordred Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 If you work out the metrics in the scenario you posted the universes would have a preferred outward direction from a central point. Unfortunately we know expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. In your scenario the central regions would have a higher energy density than the outer regions. In our universe the average energy density and rate of expansion are the same regardless of location. There is no preferred location or direction either. Dark energy of vacuum energy is constant regardless of location within our universe. We also do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Nor do we know if a multiverse even exists. For all intesive purposes there is no outside our universe. We can only determine our observable portion. Anything beyond the observable universe is mere speculation 1
Nicholas Kang Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Nor do we know if a multiverse even exists. A slightly cooler region in the south of CMB Map by WMAP might be the clue showing that multiverse exist. For all intesive purposes there is no outside our universe. We can only determine our observable portion. Anything beyond the observable universe is mere speculation Our universe is expanding into space-time, since it is made up of space-time. (That`s why we used to say spacetime continuum) This means there is no space and time outside our universe. So, we need new physics in this case.
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 If you work out the metrics in the scenario you posted the universes would have a preferred outward direction from a central point. Unfortunately we know expansion is homogeneous and isotropic. In your scenario the central regions would have a higher energy density than the outer regions. In our universe the average energy density and rate of expansion are the same regardless of location. There is no preferred location or direction either. Dark energy of vacuum energy is constant regardless of location within our universe. We also do not know if our universe is finite or infinite. Nor do we know if a multiverse even exists. For all intesive purposes there is no outside our universe. We can only determine our observable portion. Anything beyond the observable universe is mere speculation Again I think this is down to scale, the universe seems inhomogeneous at smaller scale, And statistically homogeneous at scale larger than 250 million light years, But even this is being questioned now, The Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall (Her–CrB GW) is an immense superstructure of galaxies that measures more than 10 billion light-years across.[1][2] It is the largest and the most massive structure known in the observable universe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercules%E2%80%93Corona_Borealis_Great_Wall Homogenity proplem No structures are expected to be larger than the scale in accordance to the homogeneous and isotropic distribution of matter in the universe. However, in spite of this, some structures are discovered that exceed the scale consistently, such as: The Clowes–Campusano LQG, discovered in 1991, is 630 Mpc across, and is marginally larger than the scale. The Sloan Great Wall, discovered in 2003, has a length of 423 Mpc,[11] and is also marginally larger than the scale. U1.11, another large quasar group discovered in 2011, is 780 Mpc across, and is two times larger than the scale. The Huge-LQG (Huge Large Quasar Group), discovered in 2012, has a length of 1.24 Gpc, and is three times larger than the upper limit of the homogeneity scale.[12] However, the scales of the individual quasars of this structure do not have a chance correlation to each other, providing the evidence of the impossibility of this structure.[13] The Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall is more than eight times larger than the scale,[4] greatly exceeding the homogeneity scale. In accordance with this, the structure would still be heterogeneous as compared to the other parts of the universe even at the scale of the "End of Greatness", thereby putting the cosmological principle into further doubt. I also believe "black holes/gamma ray bursts" play a large part in keeping dark energy/vaccum energy constant, by moving excess energies to different areas of universe so the universe expands has evenly as possible. It is why black hole expel energies as well as consuming. A slightly cooler region in the south of CMB Map by WMAP might be the clue showing that multiverse exist. Our universe is expanding into space-time, since it is made up of space-time. (That`s why we used to say spacetime continuum) This means there is no space and time outside our universe. So, we need new physics in this case. If our universe is a virtual particle in another universe it would be expanding into "space-time" that universes space-time, but just beyond scales we do not yet understand or be able to measure. As our universe would only last "18 orders of magnitude shorter than 10 microseconds"...in there universe. Any way to test this? I am unsure about directly at our present time with our current technology, But maybe indirectly by those far cleverer than myself. Is there a center ? scientists are still unsure whether the universe is finite or infinite, what I think is our universe is finite within a infinite multi-verse, which is why we believe there is no "center" to the "universe/multi-verse".
Nicholas Kang Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 If our universe is a virtual particle in another universe it1would be expanding into "space-time" that universes space-time, but just beyond scales we do not yet understand or be able to measure. As our universe would only last "18 orders of magnitude shorter than 10 microseconds"...in there universe2. 1. A comma missed in between? 2. typing error?
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 1. A comma missed in between? 2. typing error? An "Emphasis", on imperfections of us and our universe
Nicholas Kang Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I don`t really get your meaning, because I am stupid. Why you assume our universe is a virtual particle in your statement? You seemed to treat it as QM.
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 I don`t really get your meaning, because I am stupid. Why you assume our universe is a virtual particle in your statement? You seemed to treat it as QM. I am treating it as QM, and beyond, to scales yet beyond our present understanding. I think we do live in a multi-verse, How this multi-verse works is still open to question, I have many thoughts on a multi-verses/fractal multi-verses, but with them all I see universe within universes, At the Planck scale, the strength of gravity is expected to become comparable with the other forces, and it is theorized that all the fundamental forces are unified at that scale, but the exact mechanism of this unification remains unknown Virtual particles/universes popping into existence within our universe, but each of these virtual particles/universes will have Virtual particles/universes popping into existence within their universe etc etc. Not to scale
elfmotat Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 You are proposing that virtual particles are not only composite, but also incredibly complicated. Therefore they are not identical particles. Then fermions shouldn't obey anti-commutation rules (i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle), and all of quantum field theory breaks down. So no, this makes no sense.
CaptainPanic Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 ! Moderator Note I think this is a good point in this thread to remind everybody, but especially sunshaker of the rules of the Speculations forum. Especially relevant is the following sentence: If your speculation is untestable, or you don't give us evidence (or a prediction that is testable), your thread will be moved to the Trash Can. At this stage, we all understand your idea. Time to start talking how we can measure or test this. Also, please make sure to respond to people's input. Failure to do so might look like you are "preaching" or "soapboxing", which is against our rules (section 2.8).
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) You are proposing that virtual particles are not only composite, but also incredibly complicated. Therefore they are not identical particles. Then fermions shouldn't obey anti-commutation rules (i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle), and all of quantum field theory breaks down. So no, this makes no sense. Before i can answer this statement I will have to understand fermions/Pauli exclusion principle better than I do now., But what I gather at this time fermions cannot exist in the same location at the same time, This is how i was looking at virtual particles that annihilate each other, But I also believe Bosons can, plus certain Fermions behave like Bosons, I suppose it is down to what I am calling these "virtual particles, It is something I will have to read more upon. As for "testing", I must first look into how we test for these virtual particles, And understand better the results we already have. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in "all possible ways". These so-called "virtual particles" normally annihilate one another too quickly for us to notice them. But physicists predicted in the 1930s that a very strong electric field would transform virtual particles into real ones that we can observe. The field pushes them in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another." It seems that testing for these virtual particles will be done with lasers "lasers that can concentrate about 1026 watts into a square centimetre" These lasers will push these "virtual particles" in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another. The first version of the laser could be built by 2015, but it could take a few years after that to complete upgrades necessary to reach 1026 per square centimetre. Came across this "physicists create antimatter tabletop gun" http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html What got me is that a blast from this gun just for 30 femtoseconds results in the production of "quadtrillions of positrons", numbers I relate from coming from particles within particles. offering some answers to questions such as, what sort of proportion of particles are present in such streams, how much energy is in them, and in what ways do the particles in them interact with the environment into which they are spewed. Read more at: http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html#jCp Edited October 23, 2014 by sunshaker
elfmotat Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) Before i can answer this statement I will have to understand fermions/Pauli exclusion principle better than I do now., But what I gather at this time fermions cannot exist in the same location at the same time, This is how i was looking at virtual particles that annihilate each other, But I also believe Bosons can, plus certain Fermions behave like Bosons, I suppose it is down to what I am calling these "virtual particles, It is something I will have to read more upon. As for "testing", I must first look into how we test for these virtual particles, And understand better the results we already have. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in "all possible ways". It seems that testing for these virtual particles will be done with lasers "lasers that can concentrate about 1026 watts into a square centimetre" These lasers will push these "virtual particles" in opposite directions because they have opposite electric charges, separating them so that they cannot destroy one another. The first version of the laser could be built by 2015, but it could take a few years after that to complete upgrades necessary to reach 1026 per square centimetre. Came across this "physicists create antimatter tabletop gun" http://phys.org/news/2013-06-physicists-tabletop-antimatter-gun.html What got me is that a blast from this gun just for 30 femtoseconds results in the production of "quadtrillions of positrons", numbers I relate from coming from particles within particles. Fermions cannot and do not "act like bosons." If it acted like a boson then we would call it a boson. I already provided you with a test: check and see if the Pauli exclusion principle holds. Particles and virtual particles come from the same fields, so if virtual particles were "little universes" then particles would be too. And if these little universes differed from each other in a way that could be tested by experiment, then the Pauli exclusion principle would not hold. But it does hold, obviously, so they cannot differ in any way that can be verified by experiment. Virtual particles themselves are not directly observable. If you observe a particle, then by definition that particle is not virtual. Edited October 23, 2014 by elfmotat
Mordred Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 A slightly cooler region in the south of CMB Map by WMAP might be the clue showing that multiverse exist. Our universe is expanding into space-time, since it is made up of space-time. (That`s why we used to say spacetime continuum) This means there is no space and time outside our universe. So, we need new physics in this case. indeed however the southern region turned out ti be a calibration error. It is in fact not cooler, however the next dataset may tell a different story. Our universe is simply expanding. It is not expanding into anything. I know this concept is hard to grasp however think of it this way. How can an infinite universe expand into something? We do not know if the universe is finite or infinite our data sets only tell us we are expanding. Anything beyond the observable is untestable. Therefore conjectural. There has been numerous tests for universe collisions with the CMB however nothing conclusive has been found.
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) You are proposing that virtual particles are not only composite, but also incredibly complicated. Therefore they are not identical particles. Then fermions shouldn't obey anti-commutation rules (i.e. the Pauli exclusion principle), and all of quantum field theory breaks down. So no, this makes no sense. I am proposing that "virtual particles" are composite particles(fields), But that does not mean they are not identical particles, or at least in measurements that would effect the "Pauli exclusion principle". The one-electron universe postulate, proposed by John Wheeler in a telephone call to Richard Feynman in the spring of 1940, states that all electrons and positrons are actually manifestations of a single entity moving backwards and forwards in time http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-electron_universe This could be then said of the 1 universe, maybe each of these universes are all the same manifestation of our universe, Or as some like to believe there is a different universe for each decision we make where our paths split, These minute changes for each universe, should have no measurable effect on the Pauli exclusion principle. Edited October 23, 2014 by sunshaker
Mordred Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 Now what does the term universe mean? One way to define that is everything that is. So by that definition how can you have an outside? Anything we can see, measure either directly or indirectly is by definition part of our universe. Concepts such as what is outside our universe is then nonsense. If our universe is by the first definition there can be no outside. There is no universe wall seperating us from some void. What would it be made of? spacetime is a mathematical descriptive of space and time. Space itself is not a fabric or substance. It is merely geometric volume filled with the contents of the universe. The average energy density of intergalactic space including dark energy is roughly [latex]6.62*10^-23[/latex] joules per cubic metre. You can calculate this from the critical density formula.
sunshaker Posted October 23, 2014 Author Posted October 23, 2014 Now what does the term universe mean? One way to define that is everything that is. So by that definition how can you have an outside? Anything we can see, measure either directly or indirectly is by definition part of our universe. Concepts such as what is outside our universe is then nonsense. If our universe is by the first definition there can be no outside. At one time our solar system was "defined" as the universe, then our "galaxy was defined as the universe", But with the multiverse growing in popularity, we will once again have to redefine the universe, or except our universe is but one of many in a multiverse.
Mordred Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 (edited) True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. True but this doesnt change the fact that any theory needs to be testable to gain validity beyond speculation. There is mire multiverse theories than I can count. None will gain validity unless they can find evidence of such existing. Yes a multiverse makes sense. However this doesnt mean one exists. Just a side note chaotic eternal inflation predicts multiple bubble universes arising from expanding anistropies. The seperation being shared causality. This process involves virtual particke production. Aka the cosmological constant. However it does not state each particle is a seperate universe. Merely that the cosmological constant can cause a dissimilar regions to expand at different rates causing a multiverse. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation the key note is the cosmological constant drives expansion from within our universe. Not from outside our universe the behavior of expansion would have a preferred direction if the cause was external to our universe. Edited October 23, 2014 by Mordred
elfmotat Posted October 23, 2014 Posted October 23, 2014 I am proposing that "virtual particles" are composite particles(fields), But that does not mean they are not identical particles, or at least in measurements that would effect the "Pauli exclusion principle". This could be then said of the 1 universe, maybe each of these universes are all the same manifestation of our universe, Or as some like to believe there is a different universe for each decision we make where our paths split, These minute changes for each universe, should have no measurable effect on the Pauli exclusion principle. So you're proposing that each particle is a mini universe, but each universe is completely indistinguishable, and there's no way to test it even in principle. That seems pretty useless. Nobody actually believes the 1-electron universe is an accurate model, it was just an idea that Wheeler supposedly had.
sunshaker Posted October 24, 2014 Author Posted October 24, 2014 So you're proposing that each particle is a mini universe, but each universe is completely indistinguishable, and there's no way to test it even in principle. That seems pretty useless. Just because there is yet no way to test for this, it does not make it useless, As I see this as what may make up dark energy, which is 68% hypothetically the mass of "our universe" which we still know little about, whether dark energy may be wimp/universes that annihilate with anti wimps the product being neutrinos which may be the universes making up the wimps, with other strange particles/universes making up neutrinos, Each scale of universe/particle having a different energy field, together creating/expanding this field we call dark energy. Many ask how a universe can pop into existence, we may not understand how, but we do now that virtual particles do. Our universe "popped into existence", No different to virtual particles "popping into existence" because our universe may well be one. perhaps each universe expands until all dark matter as been expanded broken down by dark energy held together by a few filaments of dark matter, what is then left of matter stars/galaxies would be so far apart, looking from a distance would be hard to detect, for all sense and purpose would be a virtual particle, that eventually breaks down/comes in contact with an anti universe, becoming part of the background field, which the next scale universes expands within.
Bignose Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 (edited) Just because there is yet no way to test for this, Even if we don't have a tool for the test, you need to propose a test for it. You need to make a prediction. For example, you should predict that effect x happens in conditions y..... and so on. If your idea is right, there should be some way of distinguishing between it and the null hypothesis. Even if a tool won't exist to actually measure x now or any time soon. For example, see the predicted power spectrum by the Lambda-CDM theory which were calculated many years before BICEP2 was actually able to measure them. http://bicepkeck.org/ Tell us what we should see first, and then we can discuss 1) what implications occur because of what you predict and 2) ways of possibly measuring for it. Edited October 24, 2014 by Bignose
Strange Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Our universe "popped into existence" There is no evidence for that. And the rest of your post also seems to be wild speculation with no basis in science.
Mordred Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 The cosmological constant has been a subject I've spent years trying to solve. In terms of pressure its easy to relate to. However the problem arises from why is it constant? And how to account for a homogeneous and isotropic expansion. My own model ideas to this day still do not work due to those two reasons. If you look at your diagram you will see that neither will your idea. A lower energy density region outside a higher energy density region will automatically lead to a preferred outward direction. This will not work with observational evidence. Much the same way my own model does not work. Which is essentially a natural dispersion of a high energy density to a lower density state. In this regards our two ideas are the same. However as stated this does not work with observational evidence nor does it work with the FLRW metrics. Unless conclusive evidence shows an outward preferred direction then neither your model nor mine will work. The same problem occurs in the rotating universe models. Or the universe from a blackhole or inside a BH. Many models have been discounted from not being homogeneous and isotropic. This is what observational evidence supports. So unless you can develop the metrics to show how your model can maintain those two conditions your model will not match observational evidence. To this day I still have nit published my ideas on the cosmological constant for the reasons I have just state. I can still disprove my own model due to not being homogeneous and isotropic nor can I keep the cosmological constant as a constant. A higher energy density region that expands will naturally decrease in pressure. However in the case of dark energy this does not occur. As far as the evidence shows it is in fact constant in time as well as location. Your model will suffer the same problems as the dark energy outer regions are by default a lower energy density region so as your bubble universes expands the average pressure will decrease leading to a slower expansion rate instead of an accelerating expansion rate.
Strange Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 My own model ideas to this day still do not work due to those two reasons. I am going to quote this in the "why so many crackpots" thread! (As a counter-example, of course. )
Mordred Posted October 24, 2014 Posted October 24, 2014 Lol no problem once you try to use the metrics or the math. Many of the ideas can be discounted I took the time to learn them. In this case I found my model didnt work with the FLRW metrics. Ialso tried adapting the Bose-Einstein distrributions and the Fermi-Dirac equations but found I could not get them to work with the observational thermodynamic history of the universe with my model
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now