A Universe from Nothing: Not that hard to understand.

[danshawen]

IMO, Some (not me!) will say a simple quantum fluctuation in 'nothing' can (eventually/statistically!) become something!

Virtual particles cannot become real particles in quantum physics as it is conceived in the current Standard Model of particle physics. There is some fancy math associated with this idea. But that same fancy math dictates that fundamental particles are to be treated as ideal points, which is to say that if there is any internal structure lower than quarks, no one knows or cares about them. Instrumentation capable of energies sufficiently high to break them apart almost certainly exists.

The Law of Conservation of Energy demands that even something with an inertial mass as low as that of a neutrino can be converted into pure energy. One of the means for doing this is an appropriate arrangement of a neutrino with its anti-particle. This would yield a pair of infrared photons.

So, if a neutrino - antineutrino pair can be annhilated into photons, how does one build a neutrino or an anti-neutrino out of photons? A good friend who happens to be a neutrino physicist tells me this would break a dozen conservation laws ingrained in the Standard Model. Something about his statement still bothers me. Until someone can take neutrinos apart, as far as I am concerned, we don't really know all there is to know about particle physics. The smallest mass / energy particle has to be the smallest fundamental particle, doesn't it?

 

[danshawen]

I thought there were only three types of neutrino, but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sterile_neutrino

Apparently, then number of different neutrino types are unknown at this time, or, as the wikipedia article puts it, "our knowledge of neutrinos is incomplete". No kidding. No wonder so much intensive physics research is directed at understanding the behavior of neutrinos.

If science in general and particle physics in particular has taught us nothing else, it is that an understanding of physics on larger scales can only be purchased at expense of probing the behavior of diminishingly smaller domains and scales.

 

[karenmansker]

Virtual particles cannot become real particles in quantum physics as it is conceived in the current Standard Model of particle physics. There is some fancy math associated with this idea. But that same fancy math dictates that fundamental particles are to be treated as ideal points, which is to say that if there is any internal structure lower than quarks, no one knows or cares about them. Instrumentation capable of energies sufficiently high to break them apart almost certainly exists.

The Law of Conservation of Energy demands that even something with an inertial mass as low as that of a neutrino can be converted into pure energy. One of the means for doing this is an appropriate arrangement of a neutrino with its anti-particle. This would yield a pair of infrared photons.

So, if a neutrino - antineutrino pair can be annhilated into photons, how does one build a neutrino or an anti-neutrino out of photons? A good friend who happens to be a neutrino physicist tells me this would break a dozen conservation laws ingrained in the Standard Model. Something about his statement still bothers me. Until someone can take neutrinos apart, as far as I am concerned, we don't really know all there is to know about particle physics. The smallest mass / energy particle has to be the smallest fundamental particle, doesn't it?

H-m-m-m-m . . . . . . Any chance that a neutrino-antineutrino anihilation might be a source for CMBR? Your expertise/sources to answer this is better than mine.

 

[danshawen]

H-m-m-m-m . . . . . . Any chance that a neutrino-antineutrino anihilation might be a source for CMBR? Your expertise/sources to answer this is better than mine.

The CMBR is very isotropic (the same in all directions), and three of the flavors of neutrinos we know about originate from processes at the center of stars, so there would be gaps in the CMBR whereever there was a void. So it doesn't appear like neutrinos would be responsible for that.

Here are pictures of Planck CMBR and ICE CUBE neutrino sky (red is low energy, blue is high energy):



So the higher energy neutrinos don't seem to be correllated with any CMBR temperature differences.

 

[danshawen]

On the other hand:



If I flip both the horizontal and vertical axes on the ICE CUBE neutrino sky, even the Southern hemisphere CMBR "cold spot" is now in about the right place. But for that to happen, the ICE CUBE array would need to be detecting stellar neutrinos that HAD BURROWED THROUGH THE CORE OF THE EARTH. Is this possible? I've no idea.

It can't be that simple, can it?

This is because of your question, karenmansker. I'm just facilitating the analysis.

Interesting

 

[karenmansker]

On the other hand:

View attachment 1479 View attachment 1480

If I flip both the horizontal and vertical axes on the ICE CUBE neutrino sky, even the CMBR "cold spot" is now in the right place. But for that to happen, the array would of course need to be detecting stellar neutrinos that HAD BURROWED THROUGH THE CORE OF THE EARTH. Is this possible? I've no idea.

It can't be that simple, can it?

Interesting

But isn't that the classical 'pop' physics story on neutrinos? . . . that they (neutrinos) 'pass thru the earth as if earth wasn't even there'. If so, then emanations (of neutrinos) in proximity to stellar processes would certainly (IMO, be smoothed-out over 13.8, or so, billion years inferring a very isotropic presentation (albeit, with perhaps a bit of polarization, too).

BTW: What is the CMBR wavelength (or thermal?) signature compared to neutrino-antineutrino (A-AN) anihilation wavelegth (or thermal?) signature. As I recall, N-AN is in the IR zone and CMBR is in the microwave zone of the EM spectrum - 'perhaps a bit too close for' (physicists') comfort? (HAHA!) . . . . we SURE don't need (or want) THAT . . . a continuous, ongoing source for CMBR . . . . contrary to the Standard Model!!

 

[danshawen]

But isn't that the classical 'pop' physics story on neutrinos? . . . . .that they 'pass thru the earth as if earth wsn't even there'. If so, then proximity to stellar processes would certainly (IMO, be smoothed-out over 13.8, or so, billion years inferring a very isotropic presentation (albeit perhaps a bit of polarization, too).

Neutrinos only interact with the electroweak (W and Z bosons) portions of atoms, and for the most part the interiors of atoms are empty space. It is entirely possible, not "pop" science at all. Early neutrino detectors were buried deep in mines so that they were shielded from the effects of primary and secondary cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Apparently, this is also a factor in the design of ICE CUBE:

https://icecube.wisc.edu/about/overview

Nice analysis, karenmansker

 

[karenmansker]

Neutrinos only interact with the electroweak (W and Z bosons) portions of atoms, and for the most part the interiors of atoms are empty space. It is entirely possible, not "pop" science at all. Early neutrino detectors were buried deep in mines so that they were shielded from the effects of primary and secondary cosmic rays in the atmosphere. Apparently, this is also a factor in the design of ICE CUBE:

https://icecube.wisc.edu/about/overview

Nice analysis, karenmansker

Thanks for the ICECUBE link, Danshawen.

 

[TheFrogger]

If there is nothing there will be nothing forever. Something cannot come from it. I believe this occurs to every human at conception.

 

[river]

If there is nothing there will be nothing forever. Something cannot come from it. I believe this occurs to every human at conception.

True

And that is the problem , people think that nothing to something is possible , it isn't , and never will be .

 

[TheFrogger]

Nothing will exist forever and ever?
Does this mean forever has existed always? I do not think so. Otherwise we would be transported into the future. Thank you for the information.

 

[Tralay]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207v1.pdf

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing:

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.

I. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

In summary, we have presented a mathematical proof that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially if the ordering factor takes the value p = −2 (or 4). In this way, the early universe appears irreversibly. We have shown that it is the quantum potential that provides the power for the exponential expansion of the bubble. Thus, we can conclude that the birth of the early universe is completely determined by quantum mechanism. One may ask the question when and how space, time and matter appear in the early universe from nothing. With the exponential expansion of the bubble, it is doubtless that space and time will emerge. Due to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, there should be virtual particle pairs created by quantum fluctuations. Generally speaking, a virtual particle pair will annihilate soon after its birth. But, two virtual particles from a pair can be separated immediately before annihilation due to the exponential expansion of the bubble. Therefore, there would be a large amount of real particles created as vacuum bubble expands exponentially. A rigorous mathematical calculation for the rate of particle creation with the exponential expansion of the bubble will be studied in our future work.

Let's be sensible about this, any point that you can pick out and perform mathematics on is only an arbitrary point. It's not even a real point, therefore you cannot compute infinity in a finite perspective.

 

[Write4U]

Let's be sensible about this, any point that you can pick out and perform mathematics on is only an arbitrary point. It's not even a real point, therefore you cannot compute infinity in a finite perspective.

In a timeless infinity, the appearance of a point would be instantaneous. Then there is nothing, then there is something. t = 0 > t = 1
A quantum event?

 

[Tralay]

we can surely come up with a representation of infinity, but not even quantum can do it actual justice.

 

[Write4U]

we can surely come up with a representation of infinity, but not even quantum can do it actual justice.

But infinity would be timeless, no? Can we imagine an infinite continuum where time exists without reference to existence.

 

[Tralay]

I certainly couldn't imagine it

 

[Write4U]

I certainly couldn't imagine it

In that case, would any event not be considered instantaneous?
The only event I can think of is a quantum event, where a non-physical implicate becomes physically manifest.

 

[Tralay]

In that case, would any event not be considered instantaneous?
The only event I can think of is a quantum event, where a non-physical implicate becomes physically manifest.

Well, i would assume that there are infinitely smaller events occurring that would cause those quantum events to appear as wide as the universe and beyond and would render them too general and not specific enough to satisfactorily be representing something as instantaneous as time is percieved to be.

 

[Write4U]

Well, i would assume that there are infinitely smaller events occurring that would cause those quantum events to appear as wide as the universe and beyond and would render them too general and not specific enough to satisfactorily be representing something as instantaneous as time is percieved to be.

I agree with that. It sounds like the Bohmian concept of a hierarchical ordering.

But how does a timeless infinity acquire an ordering function, without an a priori instantiation? The first "change"?

 

[Tralay]

I agree with that. It sounds like the Bohmian concept of a hierarchical ordering.

But how does a timeless infinity acquire an ordering function, without an a priori instantiation? The first "change"?

That is a very good question because even though we seem to be progressing on to further frames in existence, mathematically is appears to be impossible to finish out even one singular frame due to infinity, much less traverse onto the next frame and the next etc.... it seems we have reached an anomaly or more than likely, our views on the progression of our existence needs to change drastically to fit the data.