# Pre Big Bang State

151 replies to this topic

### #18 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Understanding

• Members
• 308 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 05:57 AM

What happens when T goes to 0 Kelvin, in your equations. ?

I noticed you said if things do not match observation they are wrong, and I totally agree! Maybe you could do me a favor and read through my article again ---- we do not deviate from a model which had a hot history, the question is where the hot history arose from, since a hot big bang with low entropy violates the third law of thermodynamics. To make sense out of this problem, I argue we MUST consider a cold pre-big bang state which went under some phase transition from a dense, all-matter (cold) region into a radiation vapour phase (of radiation). The fact is, this model still fits all observational evidence, and arguably, makes more sense about big bang not being the true origin phase.

A theory I tend to agree with, is zero energy universe. This also includes a zero charge, not equal amounts of matter and antimatter. You will be aware looking at the fundamental particles quarks electrons etc the summed charges are zero. You will also be aware in beta decay a proton made of quarks can emit a positron. so what is this antimatter matter problem. I dont think one exists, except in some theory that is clearly not backed up by observation. A charge balance is all that is retained.

I suspect you are correct and a cold pre big bang stage must have occurred, to maintain the zero energy universe theory. I also suspect you are correct in that the pre big bang stage was populated by matter, (due to some variation on HUP which allows at near 0 kelvin permanent particles to appear) which would have been in some kind of condensate of quarks electrons etc. In order to have zero energy, gravity would also have to have existed. A problem you will note from this is that things would tend to contract rather than expand, unless a negative mass effect occurs as can happen in a condensate, which can only form at very low temperatures ie less than 2.7Kelvin.

Could a negative mass effect, as found in a condensate, drive the expansion(inflationary stage) of the universe, and keep space cold until it eventually starts collapsing and compressing then getting hot in nebulae and eventually exploding in super novae etc?. See the Boomerang nebulae 1Kelvin! Could we even detect  a nebulae in space at 0 kelvin except perhaps via gravitational lensing, the supposed dark matter effect. Everything unexplained in the universe is not dark matter and could easily be explained differently.

To repeat my question what happens in your theory when T = 0K ? Pre Bang

Edited by Flummoxed, 16 January 2019 - 02:52 PM.

### #19 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 04:50 PM

It's a general rule of the third law that the temperature can only approach zero, but never reach it, or you get singularities in equations like Planck's Law. The pre big bang state is a supercool region, but not a region so cool it has reached an absolute zero state, for such things are forbidden in quantum mechanics.

### #20 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2272 posts

Posted 16 January 2019 - 04:58 PM

Wrong.

### #21 Flummoxed

Flummoxed

Understanding

• Members
• 308 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 04:15 AM

Wrong.

You may be right But what or who is wrong and why ?

It's a general rule of the third law that the temperature can only approach zero, but never reach it, or you get singularities in equations like Planck's Law. The pre big bang state is a supercool region, but not a region so cool it has reached an absolute zero state, for such things are forbidden in quantum mechanics.

Qouting from the first thing that google comes across

"

Absolute zeroAbsolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. Absolute zero is the point at which the fundamental particles of nature have minimal vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion.

"

Absolute zero is not a forbidden state, it exists theoretically and is very close to being reached. Could this be what exchemist means.

In fact according to this possibly pop science article quantum mechanically below absolute zero has been achieved https://www.nature.c...te-zero-1.12146

Singularities in equations suggests the equations have limitations, not that they forbid something from happening.

Singularities could indicate something becomes a certainty or alternatively is ludicrous.

The temperature in your equations is intriguing. This is why I asked what happens when T goes to zero.

The HUP does not include temperature, so does not give any insight. Hawking black body radiation does include temperature, but requires heat as far as I can see to be meaningful.

Would you like to discuss the T = 0 K in your equations, which is apparently theoretically possible, even if an equation forbids it.

### #22 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 06:11 AM

You may be right But what or who is wrong and why ?

Qouting from the first thing that google comes across

"

Absolute zeroAbsolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. Absolute zero is the point at which the fundamental particles of nature have minimal vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion.

"

Absolute zero is not a forbidden state, it exists theoretically and is very close to being reached. Could this be what exchemist means.

In fact according to this possibly pop science article quantum mechanically below absolute zero has been achieved https://www.nature.c...te-zero-1.12146

Singularities in equations suggests the equations have limitations, not that they forbid something from happening.

Singularities could indicate something becomes a certainty or alternatively is ludicrous.

The temperature in your equations is intriguing. This is why I asked what happens when T goes to zero.

The HUP does not include temperature, so does not give any insight. Hawking black body radiation does include temperature, but requires heat as far as I can see to be meaningful.

Would you like to discuss the T = 0 K in your equations, which is apparently theoretically possible, even if an equation forbids it.

Your quote says it. We've gone over this ad nauseam but Reiku (Dubbelosix) still doesn't get it. Zero point energy is simply the energy of the ground state of any system. Because it is the ground state, this energy cannot be extracted. Because it cannot be extracted it cannot contribute to temperature, temperature being the potential for heat to flow.  As your quote states, zero point energy remains AT absolute zero.

The reason why absolute zero is unattainable is because, to get there, heat would have to be made to flow to a reservoir below absolute zero. This is a purely classical result, which does not rely on QM in any way.

Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 06:16 AM.

### #23 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:13 AM

Echemist doesn't understand quantum theory, but if you pick any good paper up on the origins of quantum theory with regards to fluctuations, his picture is terribly wrong. I have pointed out he never understood zero point energy and even for a while, he went around saying things could reach zero kelvin, which shows how wrong he actually is.

### #24 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:15 AM

A system to be at absolute zero, requires the system be Newtonian, and absolute zero is the absence of quantum motion. Since a system,. such as an oscillator can never reach absolute zero, because it would imply all motion is lost, this requires a correction term.

But because Exchemist doesn't understand this physics, he cannot help himself but troll the world with half-baked understanding of quantum field theory.

### #25 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:24 AM

In fact, the last time I had this argument with him, I explained about the vacuum expectation value - how in Newtonian physics, the vacuum does not possess an energy, while in quantum mechanics, fluctuations exist. It is surprising to me, after all the links and information I provided, he still pertains to this lie of his understanding.

### #26 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:27 AM

You may be right But what or who is wrong and why ?

Qouting from the first thing that google comes across

"

Absolute zeroAbsolute zero is the lowest possible temperature where nothing could be colder and no heat energy remains in a substance. Absolute zero is the point at which the fundamental particles of nature have minimal vibrational motion, retaining only quantum mechanical, zero-point energy-induced particle motion.

"

Absolute zero is not a forbidden state, it exists theoretically and is very close to being reached. Could this be what exchemist means.

No, this couldn't possibly be what he means, because we cannot reach absolute zero. We can get very close, but cannot actually reach it. This is an experimental fact.It is true that it is the lowest temperature, but it is not the absence of temperature (zero Kelvin) but shows that vacuum energy contributes a sum so that we can only approach absolute zero, but never reach it. This is well-explained by academics.

### #27 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:53 AM

Just for good measure here's another reference confirming that zero point energy remains at absolute zero

https://www.britanni...e/absolute-zero

I quote:

"The concept of absolute zero as a limiting temperature has many thermodynamic consequences. For example, all molecular motion does not cease at absolute zero (molecules vibrate with what is called zero-point energy), but no energy from molecular motion (that is, heat energy) is available for transfer to other systems, and it is therefore correct to say that the energy at absolute zero is minimal."

Which seems to be a virtually a paraphrase of what I said about it.

### #28 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:55 AM

First of all, zero point energy is different to zero temperature (known as zero Kelvin). Once that sinks in, we can move on and I'll teach you about vacuum states.

Edited by Dubbelosix, 17 January 2019 - 08:56 AM.

### #29 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 08:58 AM

See, zero temperature systems are in fact predicted from classical mechanics, and its even predicted in some classes of quantum theory, however true fluctuation theory involves a concept that you cannot actually ever reach zero temperatures, so the notion of a Newtonian vacuum does not exist. This means you can never actually reach absolute zero temperatures in the case of zero Kelvin, because quantum theory forbids it with the presence of vacuum fluctuations.

### #30 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 09:16 AM

Singularities could indicate something becomes a certainty or alternatively is ludicrous.

The temperature in your equations is intriguing. This is why I asked what happens when T goes to zero.

The HUP does not include temperature, so does not give any insight. Hawking black body radiation does include temperature, but requires heat as far as I can see to be meaningful.

Would you like to discuss the T = 0 K in your equations, which is apparently theoretically possible, even if an equation forbids it.

I couldn't possibly say what happens for any model that would purport to a situation which cannot retain the laws of quantum mechanics. I have studied black hole particles as possible minimum refrigerators and found some convincing evidence it might be possible, but the main thermodynamics still held so I quickly made it clear in those investigations that I take the third law seriously and that no system, that includes the universe, can ever exist at zero temperatures. The universe could get infinitely large (and infinitely flat) and it still would never reach zero Kelvin.

As for the uncertainty principle. it does play a role. Oscillators have a motion that is attributed to the motion.

### #31 OceanBreeze

OceanBreeze

Explaining

• Members
• 845 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 09:59 AM

See, zero temperature systems are in fact predicted from classical mechanics, and its even predicted in some classes of quantum theory, however true fluctuation theory involves a concept that you cannot actually ever reach zero temperatures, so the notion of a Newtonian vacuum does not exist. This means you can never actually reach absolute zero temperatures in the case of zero Kelvin, because quantum theory forbids it with the presence of vacuum fluctuations.

You are very confused.

zero point energy is the energy that remains at 0 temperature, or absolute zero.

There is nothing in physics that says a Temperature of absolute zero cannot be reached.

quantum mechanics does say that a state of zero energy cannot be reached because then the uncertainty principle would be violated.

That is, in a zero energy state we could precisely know both the position and velocity of a particle.

It is because of zero point energy that the uncertainty principle still holds at absolute zero Temperature.

zero Temperature is possible, zero energy is not.

### #32 exchemist

exchemist

Creating

• Members
• 2272 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:05 AM

I should perhaps add something to what I have said so far, which may help understanding.

In Statistical Thermodynamics, temperature determines the degree to which excited states above the ground state are populated. The number n(i) of molecules or atoms in the ith excited state, with an energy εi above the ground state,  is given by n(i) = n(0) p(i) exp (-εi/kT).

The Stat TD meaning of absolute zero is the condition in which all the atoms or molecules are in the ground state.

Note that this says nothing at all about what energy may remain in the ground state.  The energy of the ground state, if any, does NOT contribute to temperature.

Edited by exchemist, 17 January 2019 - 10:06 AM.

### #33 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:13 AM

This can clearly be shown wrong, since Plancks law is a temperature dependent system and T cannot reach zero, because of the correction term

$\frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega$

Which is the energy of the ground state oscillator, so in other words, it contributes the same towards temperature, so you are totally wrong.

### #34 Dubbelosix

Dubbelosix

Creating

• Members
• 2042 posts

Posted 17 January 2019 - 10:15 AM

Do yourself a favor and actually learn something, instead of prancing about with your archaic, and erroneous knowledge: