Gravity waves and the aether

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

It seems it was a lot less dense than the sun. Much less dense than the atmosphere, even. A reasonably good vacuum, in fact. Which I find rather surprising.

 

And not even that hot (about 3000K). I assume it was just the fact it was fully ionised that made it opaque.

.

I am just meeting up with a PhD Dr in Physics in half an hour in our Cafe to discuss this matter . Let you know if we get anywhere !

 

Mike

 

Edited June 21, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

Mike, forget about the CMB, it is just confusing you.

Focus on the simple explanation Mordred gave you. A field is a value we assign to a certain co-ordinate in our model. Classically this value was modified by particles ( charged ), but Quantum field theory turns this on its head, such that the modified field values are the quantum particle.

Keep in mind that these are both models with different areas of applicability; And the following is more opinion than accepted science...

 

You may ask , where did this field value that's assigned to each co-ordinate come from; But then you'd get an answer concerning the last symmetry break that happened a fraction of a second after the Big Bang, in this domain. Before that, co-ordinates would have had different values of different ( combination ? ) fields.

We can extrapolate this all the way back to t=0, where the potential/time graph of the universe is at the top of a Gaussian curve, but with 'ledges' along the way down. One field value for each co-ordinate, but extremely unstable. The universe rolls off the peak of the curve and expands until it comes to rest on the first ledge. This is the first symmetry break, and the original single field decouples into two ( or more ). The number of symmetry breaks that follow, and associated 'ledges' varies according to group theory model being used, but it always results in lower potential, expansion ( more gradual each time ) and more de-coupled fields.

[Mordred]

I'm not sure how we got on the topic of electroweak symmetry breaking. However lets fill in some gaps.

 

First off each field of the 4 forces has a coupling constant. This essentially relates the strength of how particle couples to a field or other particle.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coupling_constant

 

The link details the variations I could post how each coupling constant is calculated however those details are in the first basic particle physics link I provided in my earlier post.

 

Now lets run backward in time. Today we acknowledge the four forces with the Higgs field. Each field has unique properties and interactions. They are distinct from one another.

 

Now running backward in time we start compressing our universe into a smaller volume. The consequence is the temperature increases. Every particle gains kinetic energy from this temperature.

 

At certain temperatures the individual fields become indistinguishable from another field. The coupling constants of each field has the precise same value. You can no longer distinquish the electromagnetic field from the weak field.

 

So for intensive purposes the two fields act as a single unified field. Raise the temperature even higher the strong force also joins this unified field. The Higgs follows the same. Theoretically at some point gravity will also unify.

 

The fully unified field was at one time referred to as super gravity field. However I havent seen that term used in a while.

 

Now what about the particles? Well they also start to reach a state called thermal equilibrium. This is a point where individual particles become indistinct from one another.

 

As Migl pointed out though there is variations in Gut theories so when each event occurs and at what temperature will vary depending on which model your using.

 

Supersymmetry for example has a greater number of decoupling than strictly the standard model. For the Higgs sector the variations are in the different seesaw mechanisms in each model.

[Daecon]

I'm sorry. I think my comment about the CMBR just threw a spanner into the works.

 

Mike, just ignore my comments.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

As you would have gathered by now " I think in images " , not words , not maths , but pictures.

.

 

At time zero it was all together with the four forces ,plus Higgs, combination .

The border of a border is zero . This represents Perfect symmetry.

Symmetry broke in a succession of symmetry breaking processes/ events.

Everything spread abroad across the known universe (Then ). At that time , a very much , much , smaller,

Universe, taking its separate forces with it, as it expanded. Into a much bigger empty region.

 

The Electro Magnetic, force field is one of the four fields/forces plus Higgs that ended up ( now) spread across everywhere !

 

So, if you like, " THERE OR THEREABOUTS is :- the origin of the electromagnetic field. At its separation ( or symmetry breaking ) from the Electro-Weak force. And by dint of the situation then , it was , Everywhere , in the then known universe. Quite what electrical potential , existed from side to side , or outer to inner , but presumably is was sufficiently Ginormous, such that when diluted by expansion , it was still going to be sufficient to support the electrical field we see today. Unless of course it shared its charge with a myriad of dust particles, electrons , or other minute particles ( or virtual particles) so that the field was divested evenly everywhere.

 

O.k. I can see how the electro magnetic field came to be, ( one way or another ) or stretched from one side of the universe to the other . By some ginormous charge at the extremities .

 

Mike

 

 

Maybe the .---

-----------(WHOLE SPREAD of field forces and Higgs ) is the 'MEDIUM ' that I have been looking for ??

 

If it included TIME . ---- Then surely that is SPACE-TIME ? ----

 

-------------------------------------------------

I am still left a little bit nervous as to " is there anything there physically to be responsible for the field there, in the field , or trillions of miles away. ( as the field would die off by 1/R SQUARED ) "? In reading the BOHM reference , it sounded as if something physical ( even if only a force and a reaction ( particle ) was there , or nearby , , if it was a field ( not a potential ) but there is a smidgen of ambiguity, ( In my mind . ).

-------------------------------------------------

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[MigL]

So, assume all the past symmetry breaks were at 'false' zero vacuum energy levels ( that is why they were unstable and spontaneously broke ), Mike.

And we are now at the 'real' zero vacuum energy level. But it has a certain magnitude ( it is not actually zero ).

However, EM is a gauge field, so you have no way of measuring the absolute magnitude at each co-ordinate.

Like a bird on a 9000v wire, all you measure is zero, and all other measurements are 'relative' to that baseline.

 

If there was a way to measure the absolute potentials at each co-ordinate, one might be able to sum over all fields, and get a value for vacuum energy, and a reasonable value for the Cosmological constant.

( the method I've seen uses harmonic oscillators at every co-ordinate, with suitable boundary conditions, but gets a value 120 orders of magnitude too large )

[Mordred]

Not quite true, there is some conjecture we are still in a lower false vacuum state. In particular in regards to the non zero vacuum component of the Higgs field.

 

As far as modelling the cosmological constant or Higgs field another method is the scalar equations of state.

[MigL]

Oh-Oh!

Does that mean we're in for another symmetry break.

That could hurt !

[Mordred]

Thats a possibility. Well done in noting that by the way +1

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.---------------------------------------------------------

What about me ?

 

Don't I get a ( plus 1 ) for asking all these awkward questions ?

 

Quote

Mordred, on 22 Jun 2016 - 10:20 PM, said:

Thats a possibility. Well done in noting that by the way +1

 

See comment above ! ,

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Like what is actually 'there' , at this point in space , now far away from the nearest star , half way to the Andromida Galaxy . I am sitting like some bird on a pylon cable at some silly high potential ,yet am unaware of this potential.? Yet I am aware there Is an Electromagnetic field right here . How do I know this ? By Believing I am in a medium which consists of all those force fields previously mentioned, having long since symmetry broken from their other gauge forces. But aware that if I switch on my little battery powered 10 watt transmitter , I will get a transmission going as ( I have been told ) there are a few relevant bits surrounding me . A Higgs field and an electro magnetic (EM) field , at least. Right there , I was guaranteed an immediate reaction to the Static EM FIELD . Sure enough my 10 watt carrier wave, reacts immediately with this field , and heads off across my medium in space , at the speed of light. Leaving the resident Electro Magnetic field , ( shaking a little , but sitting back waiting for the next reaction.? Musing about the other fields nearby! ( a bit of gravity field) a bit of (..???? Fields ) , dust , virtual particles , other ?

 

 

Am I right ? Or roughly right , particularly about the reaction I create by switching on my transmitter , producing an electro magnetic field of my own , which reacts with the resident , medium , electromagnetic field?

 

 

Mike

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thats a possibility. Well done in noting that by the way +1

See comment above ! , Edited June 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Not bad I wouldnt personally think of a field as a medium. However thats more a semantic reasoning. The field itself is more a topography map if you will.

 

For example if the field has zero energy the field is still there but you will have no medium influence.

 

One of the difficulties many people have is the tendency to think in terms of matter and solids. In actuality what constitutes matter is only fermionic particles. Yet these particles are essentially excitations. When you get down to it a particles wavefunction is far more an accurate descriptive.

 

For example the term mass gives many people a great deal of grief. So lets look at it.

 

We all know the equation f=ma. However most fail to recognize the meaning and definition of mass. "Which is resistance to inertia change."

 

So what does this have to do with fields?

 

Lets take an arbitrary particle. Lets first assume that particle has no rest mass. (Invariant mass). Example being the photon. Although the photon mediates the electromagnetic force. It doesnt directly interact with the electromagnetic field in terms of binding energy. A binding energy would create resistance. However the photon does interact with the electromagnetic force.

 

Now lets look at a massive particle. For simplicity this particle only binds to one field. This binding causes a resistance to inertia change.

Some particles interact with several fields and gain invariant mass from each field interaction.

 

So in the above thinking a field can have medium like characteristics. However as energy is a property and doesnt exist on its own its more accurate to state that the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium.

 

Ps I will give +1 lol

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

Mike

.

Not bad I wouldnt personally think of a field as a medium. However thats more a semantic reasoning. The field itself is more a topography map if you will.

For example if the field has zero energy the field is still there but you will have no medium influence.

One of the difficulties many people have is the tendency to think in terms of matter and solids. In actuality what constitutes matter is only fermionic particles. Yet these particles are essentially excitations. When you get down to it a particles wavefunction is far more an accurate descriptive.

For example the term mass gives many people a great deal of grief. So lets look at it.

We all know the equation f=ma. However most fail to recognize the meaning and definition of mass. "Which is resistance to inertia change."

So what does this have to do with fields?

Lets take an arbitrary particle. Lets first assume that particle has no rest mass. (Invariant mass). Example being the photon. Although the photon mediates the electromagnetic force. It doesnt directly interact with the electromagnetic field. The electromagnetic field nor any field causes a binding energy which would create resistance.

Now lets look at a massive particle. For simplicity this particle only binds to one field. This binding causes a resistance to inertia change.

Some particles interact with several fields and gain invariant mass from each field interaction.

So in the above thinking a field can have medium like characteristics. However as energy is a property and doesnt exist on its own its more accurate to state that the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium.

Ps. I will give +1 lol

.

 

It's getting better all the time . I can sleep with ease now . Thank you very much !

 

Ps . You mention ' field Topography form the medium , ' that immediately invokes an image of shape , like the contours on a geographical map of some hills and valleys.

 

Dare I ask , if there is a topographic bump or wiggle then, in the field , that sort of causes a " bump " reaction or something if we get near this topographic ' thing ?' With a particle , photon or other EM. Wave ?

 

Is that the sort of thing you mean ?

 

 

You say 'the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium.'

 

So are you talking about virtual particles or photons or what quite ?

 

 

 

Mike

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

Think of topography as a set of coordinates. In Euclidean geometry coordinates are Cartesian much like a flat map.

 

Now think of coordinates that curve around a sphere. (Polar coordinates).

 

Those are two of the more common. String theory however doesn't stop there. In some of their dimensions the coordinates can be distributed in a rotational or even a tightly curled fashion. Mathematically the number of dimensions to describe an object or interaction completely is indicative of the number of coordinates to describe each location.

 

This is the topography baseline when you add a particle influence you alter from the topography baseline. Your little bumps lol.

 

Everything in physics can be described in geometry which is why differential geometry is so important

Edited June 22, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

.

You say 'the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium.'

 

So are you talking about virtual particles or photons or what quite ?

 

(Whatever they are) , are they 'moving about' though , to cause , or have caused on them , a reaction . Is that so ?

 

Mike

Edited June 23, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mordred]

.

You say 'the particles that mediate and interact with the field topography form the medium.'

 

So are you talking about virtual particles or photons or what quite ?

 

 

 

Mike

Good question to answer I'll take a textbook description of the electromagnetic field.

 

Assign every point in space a virtual photon. (Sometimes called a photon field)

 

For each field you use the guage boson in the same manner. Gluons for the strong force. Higgs boson for the Higgs field etc. For gravity we usually just use test particles.

 

Each virtual photon is assigned a coordinate. When you add an influence you cause a change in coodinate distribution.

 

Example curved spacetime

Edited June 23, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Good question to answer I'll take a textbook description of the electromagnetic field.

Assign every point in space a virtual photon. (Sometimes called a photon field)

For each field you use the guage boson in the same manner. Gluons for the strong force. Higgs boson for the Higgs field etc. For gravity we usually just use test particles.

Each virtual photon is assigned a coordinate. When you add an influence you cause a change in coodinate distribution.

Example curved spacetime

.

 

 

I am going to have to sleep on that lot !

 

Mike

[Mordred]

Thats understandable. While you think on that we can do other types of fields.

 

For example we can alternately assign each point in space a vector value or a scalar value ( temperature for example).

 

The vector value is commonly used in force type fields. Ie electromagnetic. Or even just mapping the amount of force at any given location

 

The above should help understand why differential geometry is so important in physics

Edited June 23, 2016 by Mordred

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Thats understandable. While you think on that we can do other types of fields.

For example we can alternately assign each point in space a vector value or a scalar value ( temperature for example).

The vector value is commonly used in force type fields. Ie electromagnetic. Or even just mapping the amount of force at any given location

The above should help understand why differential geometry is so important in physics

.

I went to sleep and never woke up!

 

I am lost , in a sea of mathematics . The last I remember is someone leaning over me , trying to resuscitate me , sprinkling words like " differential geometry . "

 

I am confused as to wether I am in a dream of ' fictitional mathematical constructs ' or 'reality' . I can't wake up !

This is important to me ! .

 

.. -------- To know where I am ?

 

Mike

 

There must be some recconsilliation somewhere, somehow .? , between what is some mathematicians, 'theory'

and what is actually there in 'Reality ' ?

 

I am finding it difficult to focus , and see ? And know whether I am in a dream or reality ?

There must be some 'pill ' I could take, or something ?

Edited June 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

There must be some recconsilliation somewhere, somehow .? , between what is some mathematicians, 'theory'

and what is actually there in 'Reality ' ?

 

 

Reality is what we measure in various experiments. The reconciliation is comparing these measurements with the mathematics to find out if the theory is a good description of reality or not.

 

If the mathematics matches reality then it is a good theory.

 

If the mathematics theory does not match reality then the theory is rejected.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Reality is what we measure in various experiments. The reconciliation is comparing these measurements with the mathematics to find out if the theory is a good description of reality or not.

 

If the mathematics matches reality then it is a good theory.

 

If the mathematics theory does not match reality then the theory is rejected.

.

 

What you are saying here , is no doubt , a very succinct , correct , and scientific answer. ( much appreciated) .

 

What I would ask then , is,

 

Which , or what , is the measurable bit , in the scenario, that I have ended up with above .

 

Namely the source of the ( to become the ) Electro-magnetic Fields as they came out of the symmetry breaking ( occuring at the break from the ELECTRO WEEK FORCE) .? Before the CMBR ( approx 300,000 years. After the Big Bang ) .

 

Mike

 

Edited June 25, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Strange]

We measure things like charge, voltage, distance, time, force, etc. These are the (only) "real" things.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

We measure things like charge, voltage, distance, time, force, etc. These are the (only) "real" things.

O.k so what would I be looking for HERE. ... Charge? Force ? Time ?

 

 

Mike

[Strange]

O.k so what would I be looking for HERE. ... Charge? Force ? Time ?

 

 

Any or all of the above.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Any or all of the above.

Well o.k. Time would have been somewhere after t= 0 , and before t= 300,000 years .

One or two of the forces would have started to split off , certainly Gravity, , , not sure if the strong nuclear force , broke away next? , . Then the electro weak , then the time we want is where the electro-magnetic force broke from the electro weak ? I imagine there has been a calculation for the timing and temperature for that to occur?

 

If I can get hold of that temperature and the time of that separation , that would be good?

Now quite how charge figures in this break, either before or after the break ? and how it figures?

 

I presume the pressure laws still apply at that time PV/T. And I guess pressure (P) will be pretty high. Quite how charge and electro magnetism behaves at extreme high pressure ? Volume ( V ) is somewhere very small compared with the universe of Today.

 

Quite how the charge and electro magnetic field appear at this time , I am not sure , but obviously it is measureable ( in theory )

 

There must be a lot of charge about , as when you look at the " standard model of particles " there are a lot of bits of charge , around across many of the particles .

 

Mike

Edited June 26, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

So I think I have grasped the information sufficiently to see the origin of the Electro -Magnetic field at the very early time within the 300,000 year recombination event .

 

The ' escape' of photons and the formation of atoms / molecules after this 300,000 year recombination event , lead to the future ( after 300,000 years ) expansion of the universe composed of :-

 

Atoms, some molecules, as the early giant stars formed , Photons , Cosmic Background Radiation , clumped dust particles , and of course the expanded VARIOUS FIELDS . As I am particularly concerned with ,:-

( THE ELECTRO MAGNETIC FIELD . also , molecules, dust particles ) most of which make up the medium for propagation of Electro Magnetic waves , photons , etc .

 

See following diagram :-

 

 

 

One presumes , it had to be this way . In the order coming away from time (0) .

Namely the electro magnetic field needed to be present , held within some form of spacial medium , so as once the universe had cooled sufficiently for free energetic electrons to recombine with nuclear protons and thus make atoms . The medium would be transparent enough , and very importantly

CONTAINED an ELECTRO-MAGNETIC FIELD . The photons could then propagate across this field , being electro magnetic waves in there own right .

 

I hope this sounds roughly right ?

 

Mike

Edited June 26, 2016 by Mike Smith Cosmos