Pre Big Bang State

[Dubbelosix]

If there is no problem with that, then remember also that just because the temperature is not observable, does not mean it isn't there, in the sense it approximates the motion of the ground state field. It is just like believing that virtual particles are real, though they are not observable, though tend to have some real effects in the world. Certainly the zero point field, is experimentally confirmed from the supercooling of materials.

 

Heat is not just a black and white concept of motion between moving parts - though if you use this explanation, just think of each unit of spacetime containing a motion between each other part in space. This ground state fluctuation energy though very rarely couples with real on-shell matter, so its arguable you cannot really see this temperature. But it is there, just translates into the motion of a field in the ground state.

[exchemist]

OK, this is what I was getting at when I said there is no heat inside an atom because there are only fundamental particles, as you say not observable and also the temperature not technically observable.

 

I don't think we are in so much disagreement here and neither is exchemist.

 

To me, heat requires moving parts and friction between those parts.

 

There obviously is heat between molecules and between atoms but my understanding is there is no friction inside a single atom and there cannot be heat there, even if the fundamental particles are moving around due to zero point energy.

 

My understanding may be out of date so I am not so much arguing here as discussing.

Heat requires transmissible kinetic energy, i.e. energy exchangable with other atoms or molecules. Zero point energy is not transmissible. It is locked inside the atom or molecule.   

 

(Friction is in fact an energy conversion mechanism, turning energy of motion of macroscopic objects into thermal motion. There is no "friction" between atoms or molecules in kinetic theory, merely collisions, causing exchange of translational, rotational and vibrational kinetic energy.)

 

But I can illustrate from another point of view why it is incorrect to think zero point energy contributes to temperature, by considering the implications of the idea. If it were true, there would be a series of different minimum temperatures, achievable with different substances. As zero point energy of vibration can be quite accurately estimated, (see here for instance: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/srd/jpcrd362007389p.pdf) one could work out what the minimum acheivable temperature would be for these substances. One could even measure it experimentally.  

 

But you will search the literature in vain for any such analysis or experiment.    

Edited January 19, 2019 by exchemist

[Dubbelosix]

You misunderstand, the zero point field is transmissible in some cases, it even plays a role inside of atoms. Virtual particles in this sense, have real effects in the world. It's just very rare, and even in this case, temperature is still a measure of motion and all oscillations have a motion. It is not physically correct to say a temperature is zero, because this has to hold:

 

[math]\frac{2}{3}k_BT \approx \frac{1}{2}mv^2[/math]

 

Even in a ground state.

[Dubbelosix]

And because kinetic energy has to satisfy a relationship to temperature in this way, you can see why a kinetic oscillation term

 

[math]\frac{1}{2}\hbar \omega[/math]

 

In Plancks law, is a temperature dependent system and so it cannot theoretically go to zero!! A major consequence you keep failing to understand.

[hazelm]

Flummoxed,  I will not  disrupt this debate with my question, being totally uninformed in physics.  Just send me to a known article that will explain the why of this, taken from your Wiki link and from your post.

 

"it is a natural assumption that the universe be neutral with all conserved charges.^[3] The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter."

 

My simple question:  Why should be Big Bang have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter?  "Assumption" doesn't buy it so far as I can see.  For me, assumptions are very weak and unstable reasons for believing anything.  Scientists surely have a better reason than an assumption. 

 

As I said, I'm not asking you to explain in this thread. I do not want it interrupted.  Just tell me where to turn to understand this "assumption". 

 

Thank you.  hazelm

 

P S.  I should have said I've not finished reading this thread.  So, if the answer is somewhere in here, I'll find it.  Thanks.

Edited January 19, 2019 by hazelm

[exchemist]

To continue the train of logic from post 77, since, if zero point energy contributed to temperature, different substances would have different minimum temperatures, this would have the following astonishing implication:-

 

It would mean one could put two substances at different temperatures in thermal contact and yet no heat would flow! That would certain be worth an accolade, if it could be demonstrated........   

Edited January 19, 2019 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

Heat requires transmissible kinetic energy, i.e. energy exchangable with other atoms or molecules. Zero point energy is not transmissible. It is locked inside the atom or molecule.   

 

(Friction is in fact an energy conversion mechanism, turning energy of motion of macroscopic objects into thermal motion. There is no "friction" between atoms or molecules in kinetic theory, merely collisions, causing exchange of translational, rotational and vibrational kinetic energy.)

 

 

 

I must disagree with you about this. Yes, I understand the role that friction plays in the conversion of energy.

There is friction at the molecular level and even the atomic level, between atoms.

There are many sources you can research on that.

Here is just one:

 

QUOTE

 

If according to physics, we cannot touch anything and the sensation appears only due to a repulsive force between the atoms, then how does friction occur?

 

"The most fundamental explanation - the electromagnetic force. Atoms trying to push against other atoms. And either the push or pull is deflected or shears off atoms molecules or groups of molecules leading to energy loss, through a greater degree of'jiggling' of the atoms in the vicinity of the frictional interface (increase in temperature). And so then this energy eventually lost to radiation or conduction.

Engineers and I suppose physicists also categorize friction as static or dynamic according to whether the object or system experiences friction in a non-moving or moving state respectively. In static friction the two members are locked in equilibrium, the applied force being countered by opposition forces at the atomic level. This state can only exist up to a threshold of applied force after which motion happens and you have dynamic friction."

UNQUOTE

This has always been my understanding of the frictional force, that it arises at the molecular level and even between atoms. But, at that level it can act differently that the way we usually think of friction, as explained here:

 

QUOTE

Engineers hope to make microscopic engines and gears as ordinary in our lives as microscopic circuits are today. But before this dream becomes a reality, they will have to deal with laws of friction that are very different from those that apply to ordinary-sized machines. In the 8 February PRL, a group of surface scientists has demonstrated that friction can arise between two surfaces even before they press against one another, through the formation of adhesions on the molecular level.

UNQUOTE

 

But I can illustrate from another point of view why it is incorrect to think zero point energy contributes to temperature, by considering the implications of the idea. If it were true, there would be a series of different minimum temperatures, achievable with different substances. As zero point energy of vibration can be quite accurately estimated, (see here for instance: https://www.nist.gov/sites/default/files/documents/srd/jpcrd362007389p.pdf) one could work out what the minimum acheivable temperature would be for these substances. One could even measure it experimentally.  

 

But you will search the literature in vain for any such analysis or experiment.    

 

 

Zero point energy is very interesting and I would like to understand it better so I appreciate your inputs as well as Dubbelo's. I will not debate it with either of you as I am here to learn about it and not an expert. My understanding is that it is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, so I don't feel bad not understanding it! Didn't Feynman once calculate there is enough ZPE in a lightbulb to boil away all the oceans? But if ZPE is dark energy, it is many orders of magnitude weaker than what he calculated! I won't pretend to know more about this than he did!

[exchemist]

I must disagree with you about this. Yes, I understand the role that friction plays in the conversion of energy.

There is friction at the molecular level and even the atomic level, between atoms.

There are many sources you can research on that.

Here is just one:

 

QUOTE

 

If according to physics, we cannot touch anything and the sensation appears only due to a repulsive force between the atoms, then how does friction occur?

 

"The most fundamental explanation - the electromagnetic force. Atoms trying to push against other atoms. And either the push or pull is deflected or shears off atoms molecules or groups of molecules leading to energy loss, through a greater degree of'jiggling' of the atoms in the vicinity of the frictional interface (increase in temperature). And so then this energy eventually lost to radiation or conduction.

Engineers and I suppose physicists also categorize friction as static or dynamic according to whether the object or system experiences friction in a non-moving or moving state respectively. In static friction the two members are locked in equilibrium, the applied force being countered by opposition forces at the atomic level. This state can only exist up to a threshold of applied force after which motion happens and you have dynamic friction."

UNQUOTE

This has always been my understanding of the frictional force, that it arises at the molecular level and even between atoms. But, at that level it can act differently that the way we usually think of friction, as explained here:

 

QUOTE

Engineers hope to make microscopic engines and gears as ordinary in our lives as microscopic circuits are today. But before this dream becomes a reality, they will have to deal with laws of friction that are very different from those that apply to ordinary-sized machines. In the 8 February PRL, a group of surface scientists has demonstrated that friction can arise between two surfaces even before they press against one another, through the formation of adhesions on the molecular level.

UNQUOTE

 

 

Zero point energy is very interesting and I would like to understand it better so I appreciate your inputs as well as Dubbelo's. I will not debate it with either of you as I am here to learn about it and not an expert. My understanding is that it is one of the biggest unsolved problems in physics, so I don't feel bad not understanding it! Didn't Feynman once calculate there is enough ZPE in a lightbulb to boil away all the oceans? But if ZPE is dark energy, it is many orders of magnitude weaker than what he calculated! I won't pretend to know more about this than he did!

Yes friction arises at the molecular level, certainly, but what this is saying is that friction is explained in terms of molecular collisions and the breaking of chemical bonds by shearing. So friction is the macroscopic phenomenon but, at the atomic scale, it is due to collisions and bonds forming and breaking. (I was in fact a lubricants technologist with Shell for many years :) )

 

ZPE is not an unsolved problem in physics. It is a routine prediction of quantum theory and we all learnt about it as a matter of course as undergraduates. Any ground state with residual energy has ZPE. Molecular vibration is the most famous case, but the energy of the electron in the 1s orbital of a hydrogen atom is effectively ZPE as well. (Rotational ground states do not have ZPE, however. The rotational ground state of a quantum rotor, e.g. a molecule, is stationary.)  

 

What is rather enigmatic, I fully agree, is ZPE of the vacuum. The idea that "empty" space has a residual energy in it, is a lot more counterintuitive than the regular ZPE of atoms and molecules. But that is just one special case of ZPE.

Edited January 19, 2019 by exchemist

[OceanBreeze]

 

What is rather enigmatic, I fully agree, is ZPE of the vacuum. The idea that "empty" space has a residual energy in it, is a lot more counterintuitive than the regular ZPE of atoms and molecules. But that is just one special case of ZPE.

 

Yes, this is what I was referring to:

 

Unsolved problem in physics:

Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?

 

The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10⁻⁹ joules (10⁻²ergs) per cubic meter.^[2] However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10¹¹³ joules per cubic meter.^[3][4] This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem.

[Dubbelosix]

The most obvious reason why we don't measure that vacuum energy, is because we can't. Simple as that. If you truly believed you could measure that vacuum energy, you'd have to ignore that they are described by off-shell particles (which have no Hermitian matrix leading to observables).

[exchemist]

Yes, this is what I was referring to:

 

Unsolved problem in physics:

Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?

 

The vacuum energy is a special case of zero-point energy that relates to the quantum vacuum

The effects of vacuum energy can be experimentally observed in various phenomena such as spontaneous emission, the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift, and are thought to influence the behavior of the Universe on cosmological scales. Using the upper limit of the cosmological constant, the vacuum energy of free space has been estimated to be 10⁻⁹ joules (10⁻²ergs) per cubic meter.^[2] However, in both quantum electrodynamics (QED) and stochastic electrodynamics (SED), consistency with the principle of Lorentz covariance and with the magnitude of the Planck constant suggest a much larger value of 10¹¹³ joules per cubic meter.^[3][4] This huge discrepancy is known as the cosmological constant problem.

Yes all this is fair enough.

 

But one of the things our friend has apparently muddled up is the concept of ZPE in general, e.g, as in the various ground state of systems of matter that I was talking about (e.g. vibrational or electronic states in molecules and atoms)  and this special case of ZPE of the vacuum, which, unlike ZPE in matter, is a result from Quantum Field Theory. 

 

You can see from his most recent post he doesn't grasp this distinction. He tries to answer the conundrum which I posed in post 81, about the minimum temperatures of matter his idea predicts, with some stuff about the ZPE of the vacuum, saying it can't be measured.  

 

He ignores the fact I actually posted (in post 77) a link to a table of estimated vibrational ZPEs for various substances. Here are some values from the table:

H2: 2179 cm⁻¹

CO: 1081 cm⁻¹

Cl2: 279  cm⁻¹

 

(These are expressed in wavenumber units,1/λ which is just a spectroscopic convention. From E=hν you can convert to normal energy units.)

 

What is interesting is that you can see the molecules with heavier atoms have lower ZPEs, which is what you would expect, given that as we get closer to the macroscopic realm, quantum effects become less significant. 

 

So I stick to my observation that, if his idea were right, hydrogen, CO and chlorine would all have different minimum temperatures to which they could be cooled and thus, if you put them in thermal contact with one another at those minimum temperatures, no heat would flow between them in spite of the temperature difference!   

[hazelm]

This thread is interesting.

 

 

The matter - antimatter problem from Big Bang https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem

Fundamental particles charges sum to zero. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle 

 

I was pointing out matter is not observed in equal amounts to antimatter, it follows that possibly the model predicting equal amounts of matter and antimatter might be wrong. (ie theory not matching observed facts) Neither the more recent versions or the earlier versions requiring a Big Bang explain where matter comes from. 

 

What 006 theory is trying to explain is where the matter in the universe came from, I noted for T=0 in his equations there might have been a problem. 

Thank you. I will get onto this. 

[hazelm]

It might be worth noting that in the pre big bang state, before space or mass came into existence, atoms could not zip around at high temperature because space and time did not exist until the universe inflated after an initial hypothetical Big Bang.

 

I may be wrong but I do not see any reason for an initial big bang to drive the inflationary stage of the universe. Matter equally might have come into existence during a cold inflationary stage before getting hot. ie lots of little phase transitions over time rather than one big one.

Atoms before mass?  But, doesn't the atom's nucleus have mass?    Still ......  Maybe your theory is tied to the question of why matter survived antimatter.

 

I also have a theory as to the "why" but I promised to keep my amateur thoughts out of this thread.  Maybe somewhere else later.  You all carry on.  Thank you again.

Edited January 20, 2019 by hazelm

[Dubbelosix]

A pre big bang phase does not mean there was no matter, quite the opposite since it needs to be in a liquid state. Certainly there was space and time.

[hazelm]

A pre big bang phase does not mean there was no matter, quite the opposite since it needs to be in a liquid state. Certainly there was space and time.

But Flummoxed said 'before space, time and mass existed.  At first I was thinking matter is not the same as mass.  But from what I read of atoms last night, it seems they are.    Anyway, that's why I wondered about the atoms existing before space, time and mass.   Surely sounds like a good possibility, though.  I once wrote a scifi story about a student on another universe accidentally blowing up the lab and destroying his universe.  That was our Big Bang.

 

I know.  No comment.  <G>

[exchemist]

Atoms before mass?  But, doesn't the atom's nucleus have mass?    Still ......  Maybe your theory is tied to the question of why matter survived antimatter.

 

I also have a theory as to the "why" but I promised to keep my amateur thoughts out of this thread.  Maybe somewhere else later.  You all carry on.  Thank you again.

 

It might be worth noting that in the pre big bang state, before space or mass came into existence, atoms could not zip around at high temperature because space and time did not exist until the universe inflated after an initial hypothetical Big Bang.

 

I may be wrong but I do not see any reason for an initial big bang to drive the inflationary stage of the universe. Matter equally might have come into existence during a cold inflationary stage before getting hot. ie lots of little phase transitions over time rather than one big one.

 

Edit

 

Here is some interesting linkson inflationary theory indicating that there are a few huge problems with the model, ie big cold spots in the universe exist that suggest the inflatinary model may need a tweek. http://www.kavlifoundation.org/science-spotlights/inflating-universe-sidebar#.XESD4_Z2vIV http://www.kavlifoundation.org/tags/cosmic-inflation 

 

006 model pre bang suggests low temperature. 

The CMBR is evidence for a hot plasma 380,000yrs after the start of expansion, is it not? So, if there was cold matter at some very early time, what would have heated it to achieve the observed plasma? Expansion cools rather than heats things, as a rule.  

[Dubbelosix]

Exchemist,

 

Why don't you try asking the person who wrote the theory?

 

There is no disputing there existed a hot phase, but this isn't the point. The point is to think there was a low entropy with a high temperature, violates my understanding of thermodynamics, it simply doesn't make sense. A cold pre big bang phase, does.