Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: Bill S on 26/10/2017 22:11:23
-
There have been suggestions that the Higgs field could have been the inflation. I’ve not kept up with developments (if there have been any) relating to this idea, but a few thoughts come to mind, and invite comments.
1. If the Higgs field is linked to inflation it must have been "created" in the first instant of the Big Bang.
2. If the Higgs field is the inflation it must have preceded the start of inflation.
3 If it is not the inflation it could have emerged after inflation started; in which case, could it have been the influence that "stopped" inflation?
-
Caveat emptor.
https://profmattstrassler.com/2013/03/26/cosmic-conflation-the-higgs-the-inflaton-and-spin/
-
Thanks, Jeffrey. I like to keep an eye on Matt Strassler's offerings, but must have missed that one.
-
"2. If the Higgs field is the inflaton it must have preceded the start of inflation."
That's a really hard sentence to follow Bill. How do something that 'is' precede itself?
-
"2. If the Higgs field is the inflaton it must have preceded the start of inflation."
That's a really hard sentence to follow Bill. How do something that 'is' precede itself?
Look at the sentence again, Evan.
If the inflaton was the cause of inflation, must it not have preceded inflation?
If the Higgs field was the inflaton, it must have been “there” first.
Cause and effect, and all that.
-
Heh :)
Now that is a crucial point of observation. Do a 'Big Bang' need something preceding it? And where would it end if now it would need it, meaning what would the predecessor to the predecessor be, ad infinitum.
It is a question worth wondering about.
=
My own take on it is that it shouldn't need one, but that's more of an opinion as the logic if you want one will take you on a merry go round.
-
Now that is a crucial point of observation. Do a 'Big Bang' need something preceding it?
This could lead us into the mire of the perennial discussion about “nothing”, which has probably been posted-to-death, so let’s avoid that. My impression is that increasing numbers of experts are tending towards the opinion that there was “something” before the BB. That makes sense to me; and I like things that make sense; but I try always to be open to alternatives.
And where would it end if now it would need it, meaning what would the predecessor to the predecessor be, ad infinitum.
The answer could be surprisingly simple. Infinity/eternity is not an endless expanse of time, so there is no infinite regression.
-
No, it's a very pertinent question Bill, and one that been a main reason for why I think like I do. 'Action and Reaction' as you put it is how we expect the world to work, but when we get into the realms of 'how' a Big Bang could exist we have to move away from that.
-
You can't stay there because if you do you'll never find a way to end. So whatever reason we invent for a 'Big Bang' the answer has to be different. And the most logical thing then would be to look at 'time'. But if you like me define time as locally being the same, from it following all other principles, laws etc, we've tested aka 'repeatable experiments' then 'time' by itself is not the culprit.
=
Thinking about it the way I do 'time' becomes a very local thing, of an unchanging even pace (and temporal direction) relative yourself and your surroundings. And the funny thing about it is that it not only is about you, it's locally equivalent for each and every observer.
=
The main reason for defining it this way is that it fits the way we built physics, and 'constants'. The other way is not simpler, it just leads you into a quagmire, where 'time' is a variant belonging to mass motion energy etc etc, and where 'repeatable experiments' can, and definitely should, be questioned. like 'laboratory's' in different 'uniform motions' repeating the same experiment for example, or of different mass etc etc.
=
For example: How will you argue 'constants' if 'light' change its 'speed' due to 'time' changing on its propagation to your measurement. What would that 'constant' consist of? In a way you can use this to see that what I'm thinking of isn't as simple as a 'speed of light in a vacuum'. It's a 'property' first, a 'speed' secondly, although we defined it from the two way mirror experiment, which, nota bene, Einstein never did. He kept on arguing that what made him recognize it was Maxwell equations.
He was a extremely good thinker
Ps: That's also why I find it necessary to be very clear about differing 'local definitions' from 'global', and so also about how you do a experiment. The way we do it is locally. But the way we naively think of this world is as 'our universe', and that I don't think is the whole truth.
-
Yor_on, there are some points I would like to pick up, but time's a bit short, as usual.
We seem to have drifted away from the OP, and into "the mire". I'm considering starting a new thread as a "last ditch" attempt to sort out what might not be sort-able; after which, whatever the outcome, I would do my best not to mention infinity, eternity or nothing, on TNS, ever again!
-
And the funny thing about it is that it not only is about you, it's locally equivalent for each and every observer.
Not sure I follow that, and I need to be certain I’m interpreting it correctly, before going any further.
-
Such questions, like this resolve themselves if you assume the speed of light reference is the ground state of the universe. In our universe, there is a net conversion of matter to energy, as well as force potential into energy. Energy, which travels at the speed of light, is the net lower potential product of our universe. Mass and charge is at higher potential.
Energy being t lower potential can also be inferred by the observation that mass only appears in the lab at extreme energy. The Higgs field, from which mass is assumed to appear, implies that the universe is moving in the direction of higher potential. However, this is not the net direction of universal potential.The Higgs field can occur in the lab and it can occur in pockets of the universe, but these are the exceptions, and not the rule, since mass to energy is the rule.
Although energy travels at the speed of light, photons are not entirely in the speed of light ground state. Photons have two aspects one of which is at higher potential, connected to inertial references. This shows up a variable wavelength, based on reference. In other words, an object traveling at C should not show a variable or even a finite wavelength, that is dependent on inertial reference, since C is the same in all references. Rather a particle fully in the C ground state should always show a constant wavelength and frequency; point/instant, in all references.
The universal red shift, by which we infer an expansion of the universe, is energy lowering potential back to the ground state. If you were traveling at C, the entire universe would appear as a point-instant. What that means is the only wavelength you could see would be infinite wavelength, since shorter wavelengths, than infinite, would define a fraction of a point, which does not exist by definition. The point is the smallest mathematical unit. Energy lowers potential, toward the ground state, by approaching infinite wavelength; universal red shift.
Gravity and GR is another way back to the ground at C gored state, targeted toward mass. Gravity will cause space-time to contract, which in the limits simulates the point-instant reference of the ground state; black hole.
The beginning of the universe would start at the C ground state; lowest potential. Potential needs to be added to form energy and then mass and charge. The question is if the universe is already at lowest potential, where does the needed potential energy come from? The source of this free energy comes from a lowering of entropy. Entropy is not normally available energy, due to the second law. If we lower entropy we can free up energy.
If we were in the speed of light ground state, the entire universe would appear as a point-instant. That means the activity of the universe would appear like a simultaneous overlap of all inertial affects. This creates a situation of infinite entropy, since anything and all can happen in an instant.
If we changed from this reference of infinite entropy, into the beginning of inertial, the universe would now appears larger than a point. There is now some time delay between events due to the speed if light being constant and the universe larger than a point. This will lower entropy, since universal simultaneity no longer applies. A lowering of entropy will give off energy; big boom! From there, the inertial universe will seeks higher entropy; second law, back to the ground state, as free energy is taken out of play. Entropy is an artifact of the ground state.
-
'Action and Reaction' as you put it is how we expect the world to work, but when we get into the realms of 'how' a Big Bang could exist we have to move away from that.
This one slipped through the net over a year ago, but I think it's worth a return visit.
Why do we have to move away from the concept of 'Action and Reaction' when thinking of the BB?
-
Why do we have to move away from the concept of 'Action and Reaction' when thinking of the BB?
The laws of physics don't apply, ie no gravity etc allowing a singularity to explode.
"Because of the limitations of the laws of science, there’s no way to determine the exact moment when the universe came into existence. However, scientists are able to look at what happened during the first moments after the big bang occurred."
http://why-sci.com/big-bang/
-
I've just looked at the OP. Yes; that should have been "inflaton". I blame my spell checker. :(
-
....no gravity etc allowing a singularity to explode.
Isn't that "action and reaction"?
-
If we changed from this reference of infinite entropy, into the beginning of inertial, the universe would now appears larger than a point. There is now some time delay between events due to the speed if light being constant and the universe larger than a point. This will lower entropy, since universal simultaneity no longer applies. A lowering of entropy will give off energy; big boom! From there, the inertial universe will seeks higher entropy; second law, back to the ground state, as free energy is taken out of play. Entropy is an artifact of the ground state.
How do you resolve the infinite entropy to an inertial ground state, a body at rest, with "mass to energy is the rule." Clearly lowering the entropy to produce energy to an inertial ground is "energy to mass". How does "the inertial universe will seeks higher entropy", a higher state of disorder? How do you lower disorder? Wouldn't that imply removing more energy? lol
-
How do you resolve the infinite entropy to an inertial ground state, a body at rest, with "mass to energy is the rule." Clearly lowering the entropy to produce energy to an inertial ground is "energy to mass". How does "the inertial universe will seeks higher entropy", a higher state of disorder? How do you lower disorder? Wouldn't that imply increasing more energy into entropy? Putting energy into entropy so as to lower entropy to alter the inertial ground so that it can act as a start point for c? lol
-
Isn't that "action and reaction"?
Energy can not be created or destroyed is a law of physics. The Big Bang singularity requires a move away from the laws of physics and to bury ones head in the sand. You must just accept it happened based on a mathematical extrapolation, without a scientific reason for the why.
I mentioned gravity didnt exist for the big bang to happpen, if it did you have a blackhole and nothing gets out, except maybe via Hawking radiation, followed maybe by a BH evaporating to a point where it explodes in QLG. The origins of the mass inside the Black hole exploding are not explained, and again you are meant to stick your head in the sand and say we dont know. to ignore the laws of physics and state it happened is more to do with religion than science.
The Higgs field has been conjectured as a source of dark energy and the expansion of the universe. The Higgs field arises from the quantum foam that fills all of space, which equally has been conjectured to be a source of dark energy. etc etc yada yada. Other conjectures exist for dark energy and the Big Bang here is a bit of pop science ref the Big Bang https://phys.org/news/2015-02-big-quantum-equation-universe.html
-
Energy can not be created or destroyed is a law of physics.
So far, so good.
The Big Bang singularity requires a move away from the laws of physics and to bury ones head in the sand.
A singularity requires a move away from the laws of physics only if you treat a singularity as a physical reality. Singularities represent the errors in our current theories, they are “short hand” for we don’t know what the hell is going on, here. They are not objects that actually exist.
You must just accept it happened based on a mathematical extrapolation, without a scientific reason for the why.
Arguing that mathematical “reality” and physical reality are not necessarily the same, is one of the things responsible for my having been labelled a crackpot.
So far, extrapolation has not taken science back to the point of origin of the Universe, be it a Big Bang, or anything else. Even proposing that gravity could not have existed at that point is, at best, theorising, and at worst dogmatising.
I mentioned gravity didn’t exist for the big bang to happen, if it did you have a blackhole and nothing gets out….. The origins of the mass inside the Black hole exploding are not explained, and again you are meant to stick your head in the sand and say we dont know.
Admitting that one doesn’t know is not tantamount to sticking one’s head in the sand (BTW, there’s no evidence that ostriches do that 😊), it can, and should be the jumping off point for enquiry and theorising.
-
Arguing that mathematical “reality” and physical reality are not necessarily the same, is one of the things responsible for my having been labelled a crackpot.
I agree with your argument, and I think most other people would also. Maths is just a tool used to model and make predictions, and is just one way of explaining things. If the maths is used within limits of where the models apply, then you make accurate predictions, if the models are stretched beyond the limits of their applicability in the absence of a better theory, then you arrive at singularities, which are perhaps taught religiously by some crackpots. I notice you have 2793 posts, which I have not read, but you do have 75 thanks, so you can not be a total crackpot :).
There are a lot of threads on this forum whereby people are asking questions around the fringes of what is properly understood. The Higgs field and the HUP is starting to get down to the nitty gritty of what space is and how it responds, but we could only be looking at a reflection from a higher dimessional space.
-
I notice you have 2793 posts, which I have not read, but you do have 75 thanks, so you can not be a total crackpot :).
Neither no. of posts nor qty of thanks are good indicators of crackpotness eg Box. However, I can safely say that in my experience Bill is not a crackpot - yet ;)
-
Thanks Colin. I guess that means I have to put in a bit more work on my image. :)
-
but we could only be looking at a reflection from a higher dimessional space.
What makes me think you like the idea of extra dimensions? Have you thought that we could equally well be looking at a shadow of an infinite (dimensionless) reality?
-
Have you thought that we could equally well be looking at a shadow of an infinite (dimensionless) reality?
Sounds like Aristotle pre-empted holographic universe?
What was that you said about mathematical “reality” and physical reality are not necessarily the same?
-
"nihil novi sub sole" Ecclesiastes 1:9.
Of course, very little of the holographic universe is "sub sole", or is it?
-
holographic universe? What was that you said about mathematical “reality” and physical reality are not necessarily the same?
Can you explain the Holographic universe principle, in words, without invoking extra dimensions of reality.
But you like you say, maths does not necessarily portray reality, this may well be true of string theory, which hasn't come up with any useful predictions yet. However the holographic universe does make predictions and is based partly on string theory.
-
Can you explain the Holographic universe principle, in words, without invoking extra dimensions of reality.
That’s an interesting challenge.
Perhaps we should start with some clarification as to what we mean by the holographic universe. are we saying that, as with the holographic images produced by lasers, it is our brains that interpret the “frequencies” of the Universe to produce the images we see and the “reality” we perceive around us?
Are we saying that every part of the Universe is, in a very real sense, the whole Universe?
-
Perhaps we should start with some clarification as to what we mean by the holographic universe. are we saying that, as with the holographic images produced by lasers, it is our brains that interpret the “frequencies” of the Universe to produce the images we see and the “reality” we perceive around us? Are we saying that every part of the Universe is, in a very real sense, the whole Universe?
The Holographic principle has nothing to do with the Higgs field, which definitely is not explained via additional dimensions of folded space time, or reflections.
I am not a Robot reCAPTCHA is absolute fricking crap!
-
Perhaps we should start with some clarification as to what we mean by the holographic universe. are we saying that, as with the holographic images produced by lasers, it is our brains that interpret the “frequencies” of the Universe to produce the images we see and the “reality” we perceive around us? Are we saying that every part of the Universe is, in a very real sense, the whole Universe?
The Holographic principle has nothing to do with the Higgs field, which definitely is not explained via additional dimensions of folded space time, or reflections.
My post was in response to:
holographic universe? What was that you said about mathematical “reality” and physical reality are not necessarily the same?
If you found in my post any suggestion that I was linking the Higgs field to the holographic principle, additional dimensions, folded space time or reflections; I would be interested to know.
-
I stand corrected I just searched on Higgs field and extra dimensions, and had lots of hits, the first was the following to get you started. The rest I am still sifting through.
https://home.cern/science/physics/extra-dimensions-gravitons-and-tiny-black-holes
(Hows that happened reCaptcha has vanished and I can post links. Yeah Im not a robot anymore)
Edit: more of the same from Cern https://cds.cern.ch/record/1379198 by John Ellis and the search for the Higgs and extra diomensions.
-
Thanks for the links; I've bookmarked them for later reading.
Hows that happened reCaptcha has vanished and I can post links.
I hope you're not asking me; I'm a Luddite. :)
-
As the OP, I have to say I think this thread may have been "posted to death".
I'm no nearer to clarity on the original question, but some interesting points have been raised, some of which might merit threads of their own. Thanks to all who have chipped in.
-
I stand corrected I just searched on Higgs field and extra dimensions, and had lots of hits, the first was the following to get you started. The rest I am still sifting through.
Wow, hello dead cat.
Did you know that starting up a separate identity in order to hide who you are fool us into thinking you are someone else, is trolling? Not a clever thing to do, we don’t like trolls.
-
No Bill.
Isn't that "action and reaction"?
That is a 'start' of the arrow we define
-
You have to differ it from action and reaction
Action and reaction needs that arrow
-
No Bill.
Isn't that "action and reaction"?
This was in response to:
….. no gravity etc allowing a singularity to explode.
No gravity = cause (action) – singularity explodes = effect (reaction). Isn't that "action and reaction"?
-
That Bill, is looking for a 'force'.
And forces needs a arrow