lagache@violet.berkeley.edu (Edouard Lagache) (06/28/87)
I have obviously failed to explained the physics behind my
Physical objection to Vacuum Genesis. So at the risk of beating
a dead horse lets run it through one more time.
The result of Enstein's and Hubble's work indicated that
space it itself expanding. The standard analogy is that of the
surface of a balloon. Paint galaxies on a balloon, and then blow
up the balloon. Every galaxy gets further away from all others.
If you let the air out of the balloon you run the universe
backward. If you suck all the air out of a perfect balloon you
get the Big Bang particle.
The surface of a balloon is a 2 dimensional equivalent of
our universe. Of course, all school kids ask why we can't travel
through the inside of the balloon instead of only on its surface.
That is where the analogy breaks down, we are *bound* to the
equivalent of the surface of that balloon, and *ALL* the physics
we know about concerns that surface - NOTHING ELSE!
What does this have to do with vacuum genesis? All the
"vacuum" that scientists have ever observed was created by the
big bang, just all the space between the dots on the balloon were
created by blowing up the balloon. Since "Big Bang" vacuum is
the only vacuum that has ever been observed, scientists simply
have *NO* empirical data of the vacuum that the "Vacuum Genesis
Particle" would have arisen out of. Matthew P Wiener in his note
of June 27, suggested that the vacuum genesis particle would have
been created in "the vacuum that modern physicists have been
studying all along." That statement just ain't true. To return
to the balloon analogy, it would be the same as saying the space
on the surface of the balloon is *identical* with the air in
which we blow up the balloon.
Thus we arrive at the basis of my objection. Present
Physics states that not only all matter and energy but all space
and time were created in the Big Bang. Yet, Vacuum Genesis
attempts to "reserve" some of that space-time for the Big Bang
Particle to be created in. This does not preclude the
possibility of Vacuum Genesis, but it does *require* the
assumption of another universe that obeys the same physical laws
as our universe. Physics cannot have its cake and eat it too.
Either space-time is bounded by the Big Bang and thus we need
another universe for the Big Bang, or some our universe "leaked"
from the Big Bang, and there is something very wrong with
relativity and few other things.
Some consequences. 1.) If there is some other universe in
which our universe was created, then we have *no* scientific
knowledge of it. The reason is simple. Science is based on
empirical observations of the "physical" world where "physical"
has come to mean something created in the Big Bang (either matter
or energy). By definition we cannot observe things outside our
Big Bang created universe, thus while we can create theories by
the ton (it is called speculation) we have no way to
"scientifically" test them.
2.) There is no reason to believe that our physical laws
apply to any other universe. This follows from 1.) and Hume's
skepticism on inductive logic.
3.) A infinite regress of "vacuum genesis" creation
sequences is not a "scientifically" acceptable theory because it
has a zero probability. The probability of the creation of an
ultra energetic particle via the uncertainty principle is
extremely small. If it is necessary to have two such events then
the probability is extremely small number squared. The
probability of an infinite number of such events is an extremely
small number raised to an infinite power - which is zero! Thus,
if one must postulate an infinite number of vacuum genesis
events, I can prove that the universe doesn't exist!
Well 600 words later, and I find myself just as inclined to
unsubscribe to this group as I am to send this note. Rather than
waste what feeble brain power is left to decide the issue, I
leave it to my readers to decide.
Edouard Lagache
School of Education
U.C. Berkeley
lagache@violet.berkeley.eduobnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) (06/28/87)
I will leave comments about philosophy out. I think they're important questions, but I only have time to dash off some quick corrections on the physics. In article <4148@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, lagache@violet (Edouard Lagache) writes: > Matthew P Wiener in his note > of June 27, suggested that the vacuum genesis particle would have > been created in "the vacuum that modern physicists have been > studying all along." That statement just ain't true. But it is! Guth and others have derived their vacuum genesis models *within* the known/conjectured physics of "our" vacuum. > To return > to the balloon analogy, it would be the same as saying the space > on the surface of the balloon is *identical* with the air in > which we blow up the balloon. The analogy breaks down here. Any reference to the space inside the balloon is meaningless. (Or have I misunderstood what you are saying?) > 3.) A infinite regress of "vacuum genesis" creation > sequences is not a "scientifically" acceptable theory because it > has a zero probability. The probability of the creation of an > ultra energetic particle via the uncertainty principle is > extremely small. No, it's probability is unity. > Well 600 words later, and I find myself just as inclined to > unsubscribe to this group I hope not. > By definition we cannot observe things outside our > Big Bang created universe, thus while we can create theories by > the ton (it is called speculation) we have no way to > "scientifically" test them. No way? I think this gets murky. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 Paper in white the floor of the room, and rule it off in one-foot squares. Down on one's hands and knees, write in the first square a set of equations conceived as able to govern the physics of the universe. Think more over- night. Next day put a better set of equations into square two. Invite one's most respected colleagues to contribute to the other squares. At the end of these labors, one has worked oneself out into the door way. Stand up, look back on all those equations, some perhaps more hopeful than others, raise one's finger commandingly, and give the order "Fly!" Not one of those equations will put on wings, take off, or fly. Yet the universe "flies". --John Archibald Wheeler
ed298-ak@violet.berkeley.edu.UUCP (06/29/87)
In article <8706281022.AA18649@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.berkeley.edu (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes: >> 3.) A infinite regress of "vacuum genesis" creation >> sequences is not a "scientifically" acceptable theory because it >> has a zero probability. The probability of the creation of an >> ultra energetic particle via the uncertainty principle is >> extremely small. > > No, it's probability is unity. I would like a derivation of this please! Last time I looked infinity X = 0 for all 'X' less than 1. Has this changed or are you claiming that the probablity of very energetic particles being created via the uncertainty principle is 1. Golly, Physics sure has changed since I last studied it. Edouard Lagache
rdh@sun.UUCP (06/29/87)
I agree that there's a fundamental difference (physically and philosophically) between the concept of vacuum as empty-space-between- objects, and vacuum as a state-of-universal-nonbeing. If vacuum-genesis postulates the pre-existence of a space-time continuum, albeit one with a vastly different distribution of matter-energy, then I'd have to agree with your objection that it doesn't explain the origin of the universe. If it ONLY explains the forces driving the current distribution of energy-matter, that's still quite valuable. By the way, thanks for trying again. The second try seemed much clearer to me. -bob.
obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU.UUCP (06/29/87)
This will be my last article on the >physics< of vacuum genesis. In article <4158@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, ed298-ak@violet (Edouard Lagache) writes: > are you claiming that > the probablity of very energetic particles being created via the > uncertainty principle is 1. Yes. For one thing, you did not specify a per-universe time interval. And even more confusing, "time" does not exist in the situation we are talking about. More to the point, the quantum vacuum *is* a raging sea of virtual activity. Guth and others have proposed that a bit of this activity got "trapped" in a false vacuum, and had nowhere else to go but (if you'll pardon the idiom) up. More recently, this has turned into the suggestion that "spawning universes in your own backyard" goes on *all* the time. I am also troubled by your "proof" even if the probability is < 1, and even if you were to put in time limits. I can't point at anything and say this or that is wrong, just that the whole thing smelled like the reasoning behind the St Petersburg paradox. But I took the simpler ob- jection. Finally, I am troubled by what I feel was just too literal a usage of probability here. There has never been agreement about the interpre- tations of QM in the first place, and when it comes to cosmology, they tend to disintegrate. I am not used to seeing quantum physics papers state what interpretation they were using, excepting those *about* specific interpretations. But recently a number of otherwise normal cosmology papers have spelled out the assumed interpretation. So even if my botherations in the previous paragraph are just bad intuition on my part, I have strong reservations about the physical significance of your argument. > Golly, Physics sure has changed since > I last studied it. Gosharoonie, I feel that way sometimes too. And the last time I studied any physics was yesterday. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720 "Do not believe astrophysical observations until confirmed by theory."
kent@xanth.UUCP (Kent Paul Dolan) (06/30/87)
You guys seem to be arguing back and forth on the basis that this universe
started out as some hugely energetic particle. Is this necessarily so?
Inflation theory suggests that a "crystalization" or "precipitation" occurred
as a phase change from one vacuum to another, adding tremendously to the
energy of the system (our proto-universe).
We still can't see anything before 10**-43 second or so. Who's to say that
there weren't several prior inflations? Our universe may have started out as
nothing more impressive than an electron, uncountable numbers of which boil
into and out of existance each second in miniscule portions of our vacuum.
Perhaps our minimal sized particle happened to be unusually long lived
enough to undergo a first inflation, and things cascaded from there.
Eduardo, you need to go back and look at some elementary probablity theory.
Any event with non-zero probability (the usual example is all the air in a room
rushing to one side) will take place with probability unity over an infinite
timespan, which an empty universe certainly had to come up with its first
particle.
Kent.
--
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student // Yet
UUCP : kent@xanth.UUCP or ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent // Another
CSNET : kent@odu.csnet ARPA : kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu \\ // Happy
USPost: P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559 \// Amigan!
Voice : (804) 587-7760 -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>
I code reactor power plant control in C.
I add "count_of_recent_alarms" to "count_of_rods_to_lift".
C is weakly typed; the compiler doesn't notice.
A major coolant valve sticks, a spate of alarms occur.
All die.
Oh, the embarrassment!