Inflationary Theory. Absolute Vacume.

[bettysfetish]

I'm new here. Anyone into the inflationary universe thing?
I'd like to discuss "absolute vacume" and the notion that it is a "functional system" and therefore has "energy."
If anyone would like to start me up this could be interesting.
Thanks. BettysFetish. (betty will do.)

 

[Loren Booda]

Sure, bet,

By a "functional system" do you mean it obeys conservation of energy? Or, that the Higgs potential is a fundamental function of the vacuum?

 

[bettysfetish]

loren: Hi.
Well, to start, I think everything must obey the laws of conservation in some mannor. Wouldn't you think?
It's hard to envision nothing; absolutly "nothing." When we create a vacuum here, on earth, the energy pulls in on all sides of the vessel equally. If the vessel had walls miles thick you could imagine the
neg. P.S.I. that could be obtained. But what about "just nothing", that's hard to comprehind.
But do you think that that's all there was to start with.
Here, comes into play the "Uncertainty Principle", and the theory of the creation of virtual particles/anti-particles and their respective annililations.
Can you bring us from "0" time to about 10 -45sec.? I believe this is the point where we left "False Vacume" and shed the energy of the Higg's Field as mass. And this seems to be the most intriquing point in "time" as I don't think that time can be a factor without mass, hinceforth a "Big Bang."
Well? - - - What do you think?

 

[bettysfetish]

I think I'll have to delve a bit deeper in my books and thoughts to see if I can theorize how the Higg's Field evolved in those first few negitive seconds. Everthing was in a state of "Super Symmetry" at that point and the quantum field is controlling matters.
It's hard to believe so much time and thought can go into this incredibly short span of time.
I see you'r 2/26, I'm 2/7. we may relate here well.

 

[Loren Booda]

betty,

Observe a true vacuum. It is now no longer a true vacuum.

Try traveling before the Planck time (T*~10^-44s). By introducing your own minimum certainty of time to that epoch, you impose an interval of at least T* to the situation.

Can you imagine a physics with no laws of conservation (symmetry)?

 

[bettysfetish]

Hi. Tell me, How do you invision a true vacume? Sometimes at night as I fall to sleep I go there, and a true vacuum is something I've "almost" been able to imagine. In the macro world something must contain the vacume, but in the Quantum world the vacuum is all there is. It certainly couldn't exsist in our current concept of space because it could continiously "suck in" more mass to it's vacuum therefore making it "Not" a vacuum at all.
Can you find words to describe what it is you invision?
On another point, in what "observational mannor" do you mean it is no longer a vacume?
It seems your way ahead of me in some areas but I comprehind theoritical concepts well, assemilate and extrapolate ideas, and retain information well.
What is the shortest time we have measured so far? Isn't it about the length of time it takes for a particle exchange?, about 10 -23?
Isn't the Plank Time a point in time that we only discuss theoriticly? I mean as far as I know we have not generated energies in excess of about 10GeV at Brookhaven.
I'm sorry, I don't mean to digress but it's all related and I'm trying to build a base of information on your thoughts so as to relate to you responses better.
Laws of Conservation must be followed(with an exception of the decay of the K meson, which we can discuss later as it's relevent), but C.P.T. theories may be of help here as they can be takin seperatly and are governed by forces that were not yet established at the time in question. At the point in question mass was not there yet and the energy prevalent was in a state of "SuperSymmetry", but I suppose even in that state that energy consirvation laws must be obayed but on a "Quantum" level.
Hope I'm not getting too far off base with some of my concepts, what do you think so far. I think I could learn a bit from you.
L8R

 

[bettysfetish]

I didn't mean to imply that C.P.T. isn't relevant now.

 

[elas]

Loren Booda betty replied, Observe a true vacuum. It is now no longer a true vacuum.

This is exactly what QT tells us, it means that the void has a minimum energy level and that a state of absolute nothing is (theoretically) impossible.
The reason for this is that vacuum is the force of nothing and a force cannot exist without a force carrier, hence the minimum energy (or mass) level is that required to carry the maximum vacuum force. That means that any attempt to create a volume of absolute nothing will always fail because it is impossible to create a volume of nothing without at the same time, creating the force of nothing (i.e. vacuum) and its carrier. Hence the impossibility of singularities.

 

[Loren Booda]

Agreed, elas, except for the possibility of singularities. Perhaps you meant that they are more mathematical constructs than physical? A black hole singularity can have the properties of mass, charge and angular momentum and emit Hawking radiation.

 

[vlamir]

Betty,
Perhaps, absolute vacuum is the medium for telepathic information?

 

[elas]

Agreed, elas, except for the possibility of singularities.

The structure of a black hole must be one of two possibilities. Either it is a single field, in which case it is no different from any fundamental particle, except in size; or it is a group of fields/particles in the same manner as baryons and atoms.
As neither fundamental particles, baryons or atoms are considered to be sigularities, I cannot see why Hawking et al keep saying that a Black Hole is a singularity.
This is just another case of inventing terms for the sake of publicity. A stiff dose of The Law of Economy is all that is needed to clear away the fog of confusion. If you are going to come back to me on this please include a definition of a singularity that is different from the definition of a fundamental particle.

 

[clicky]

There is something into what looks like absolute vacuum.
You should only figure out what it is.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by elas
The Law of Economy

Maybe you covered this somewhere else (sorry if I missed it), but what exactly is this? A google search came up with nothing appearing relevant.

 

[elas]

Law of Economy

Try Occam,s law or Ockham's law both spellings in common use. Basically it states that No new entity should be introduced unless absolutely necessary . My argument is that there is no need for any force other than Vacuum Force

 

[Nibles]

The Paradox of Existence and Absolute Nothing

Hello. I'm no physics genius or anything, but I couldn't sleep one night, so got up and wrote this piece, and in this piece I came up with the idea of Absolute Nothing, where time and space don't exist, and how I think existence could be a paradox. Then searched the web to see if anything else had been said about it, and here I am.
Here is a section of it...

If I held out my hand, and all of a sudden Something appeared on it, then this Something came from Nothing, right? Wrong. Something already exited on my hand to begin with: time and space. Thus, this Something did in fact come from Something else. If you have Absolute Nothing, where there is no time and space present, then this is a state which could not support Something, that is why it is called Absolute Nothing, because there is absolutely Nothing there. You can't even imagine this Absolute Nothing in your head, because there is nothing to imagine. It doesn't look like anything, or feel like anything - it's absolutely Nothing. But, if I was to hold Absolute Nothing in my hand, would it look like a black void, because since it is Absolute Nothing, light and matter could not exist in it? No, it would not look like anything, since if Absolute Nothing occupied time and space and could therefore be seen relative to it's surroundings, then it would in fact be Something. Absolute Nothing does not exist (just as darkness is only an absence of light), and where there is Absolute Nothing, there is no reality, and no existence.

So? Well, I guess you could conclude that there was no Start to existence, even though one is needed, because for one point in time to begin with no previous supporting state is a contradiction, or more so a paradox.

 

[Loren Booda]

elas

My argument is that there is no need for any force other than Vacuum Force

Mine is that the vacuum manifests all interactions approaching both absolute zero and the Planck temperature (~10³²K).

 

[elas]

Please go to Theory development - Why all the nutcases where you will find a lengthy debate on the subject of vacuum, and more importantly some explanation of what leading academics think about the current state of Relativity and Quantum Physics.
The forum has constructive criticism by forum mentors and members thus highlighting the value of physicsforums, I am surely not alone in benefitting from it. It means another rewrite of my web page is about to start but is a month or so away at present.
The simple truth is that another theory is needed to complete our understanding of the universe and the race is on between strings and vacuum. Strings have a head start in the popularity stakes but vacuum has the long term advantage of being the only theory with a recognised scientific base.

 

[bettysfetish]

Well, that took a while. I just saw your reply/replys. The comp burned in the house. took a while to find funds for a new one.
Loren Booda: Just viewed your link. I'm impressed. however time is short. I've saved it to favorites to read after work.
I guess laws of conservation (hereon "cnsvn") might be implyed. But I wonder?: would you think "mass is necessary for a timeline to exsist?" My ability to equate is limited but my conceptual skills are great.
The concept of "absolute vacume" is staggering. To use concepual words is difficult at best to attempt to describe this purely energitic state. if energy is to mass and >< then could not a state of "nothing" exsist. "False Vacume" seems the best description. Here we are not speaking of any vacuum we could easily invision. "Here", an absolute vacuum is simply not possible. We can try but each vacuum requires a vessel of some sort, and we can't "suck the sides into infinity", for any vessel would implode. But an infinit expanse of nothing,"absolute nothing" "Is" a funtional system, albeit a negitive one. Any fluctuation in it's energy, anywhere within it's infinit bounds would surely lead to an uncontrolled creation of matter. And as the unpreditablity law states, that will surely occur if you wait long enough.
Now in this abolute expanse of nothing when this event occures and matter is being created at an incredible rate, it's creation, it seems, would be greatly assisted and it's volocity greatly increased as the "negitive" energy of the vacuum "attracts" the "positive" energy state of the mass being produced. These combined forces of the (#2)-matter needing some "space" while the (#1)-space is "in waiting" for matter; i got those backwards, mabey it's a CPT thing:) might simply "Yank" things out beyond the volocity of light.
Anyhow, i wonder, the laws of cnsvn; are they implyed before matter? i guess so, they govern energy as well as mass.
The Higgs Field; wouldn't that energy occur as matter was forming? all matter particles did not form simultainiously. Did it dissipate through phase transition of should it still be detectible somewhere, somehow?

 

[PRyckman]

Sorry to jump in at topic but
A true vacuum would mean space exists but there is absolutely nothing in it.

And like loren booda said, "Observe a true vacuum. It is now no longer a true vacuum."

Plus for any potential energy to exist here, there must be an attached part with pressure, which would further make it impossible.

 

[bettysfetish]

Hello all.
I'll try to make sense here but most of you, I feel, are beyond me intellectually; it seems I am best able to work through conceprtual and anilitical terms. I need help with any equations of formulas to really prove or disspell anything.
I've read the entire thread and unless I've missed something, all the replys come with the implication of some kind of matter or energy present. Even "Point Singularitys" or "Strings", whichever one prefers, are a point for discussion that occurred "After" the point in the inflationary process I seek to ponder here, at this time anyway.
What state do you; Strike That!, "Can You", imagine exsisted, "in waiting" for - - - "something." I can find no words that could truly describe the state of "False Vacume."
(((I've Put This Here Last)))((( after reading the way I'm wording things i think false vacuum is not an accurate word for the point of this discussion. there is no state here to describe other than energy in an unbounded negitive state. the false vacuum state would be created with the assistance of a developing Higg's field as the first tangible particle came into exsistance throwing the conserved balance of negitive state into a positive one, I.E. something we can measure.)))
(I'd love to upload some diagrams but don't know how. Can someone help?)
And on that false vacuum note: Would it be considered so that the measurement of "vacume" is a negitive equation "but" that is a measurment or value arbitrarily set by mankind. That being said why not reset values to "Zero Infinity?" There would be no "walls to cave in or implode" here. But this too would imply that "Something" be there to measure. We've got to get beyond this concept that there is "Anything" there to measure whatsoever. This is all theoritical, of course.
I'm really not smart enough to know if that last paragraph was an intellegent thought or not. Did it make sense to any of you?
I do invision this state as a funtional system. Therefore, by the uncertainty principle something will inevitibly occur at some point. This negitive energy state waits for any imbalance and if such happens the results would be "explosive."
It seems this would be a state of pure energy. Need one go further with "that."
Would not a state, of this sort, constantly be creating and annililating some kind of energitic particles which through the laws of conservation would remain in check until something happens as predicted in the uncertainty principle? Boy,- - if something throws everything out of check here you better run far and fast. :) Would this would be a state of absolute perfect symmetry?
What about this J/Psi particle theory. Anyone read anything on this? I understand it is the most massive particle to date. It's lifetime is thousands of times longer than would be expected because it lives longer as it's mass increases. This leads one to infinity, in theory.
Gotta go. Thanks for reading.
L8R

 

[elas]

Loren Booda

Mine is that the vacuum manifests all interactions

I have a sneaking suspicion that you are using professional language to say what I am saying in amateur tongue. I also note that your webpage uses ST (Relativity and Quantum theory) while I approach vacuum from the Particle Physics viewpoint. You have the advantage of mathematical training and your approach is from the philosophical (ST). Without mathematical training I have to stay with the simplicity of reality (particles and force).

Does your model explain the cause (how and why) of particle structure and origin of forces? or are you limited to strings?

On my webpage I make the point that a one dimensional (strings are one dimensional) or plane view of my three dimensional particles would look the same as open and closed strings, would you agree that this is a reasonable proposition, even if you dissagree with the proposition itself?

Are there any similarities in our proposals? I lack the mathematical skills needed to determine the answer.

 

[Loren Booda]

elas,

Actually, my approach is more akin geometrically to quantum gravity, although it has results (winding and vibrational states) similar to string theory. Particles and forces there may arise from interference between real and virtual wavefunctions.

I was unable to access your site by clicking on your username and then the link to your site.

Remember that there are two different vacuua, the true and the false - related by the Higgs potential.

 

[elas]

Loren Booda

Actually, my approach is more akin geometrically to quantum gravity,

Perhaps now we can get to the heart of the subject. I define gravity as the distortion of the graviton field. By this I mean that vacuum fields with medium or high density vacuum force carrier (leptons and baryons) distort vacuum fields with weak density force carrier (gravitons) due to a difference in volume (greater density=lesser volume).

I understand the term 'quantum gravity' to mean the smallest possible quantity of gravity, but how do you explain the division of gravity into small quantities?

My website is at http://elasticity2.tripod.com/