QM randomness...

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by Seattle, Jun 2, 2017.

  1. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Well here is a quote from the same wiki website I referenced to.
    I must admit that the word super cooling is not used but the word cooling is sufficient.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Which part? The statement is

    ''And non-conservation of particle creation is expected to happen when the universe was young with a large curvature. There could certainly be isodensity between the phase states, there may not be an isothermal phase change - certainly, there would not be one with a pre-state heating into a post state.''

    As for the latter part, look into the references already provided about isothermal Gibbs-Helmholtz thermodynamic phase change for a universe (by Kraft et al.) But here it is any way

    http://sci-hub.bz/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1992.tb17071.x

    As for the first part, a number of articles can be found which are related

    https://www.researchgate.net/public...article_production_From_Big_Bang_to_de_Sitter

    ''In principle, the functional form of particle creation rate Γ should be decided from the QFT in curved space times where the particle creation process happens in an irreversible thermodynamic way''

    https://arxiv.org/abs/1409.5283

    https://www.researchgate.net/public...n_and_Masslike_Function_in_General_Braneworld

    https://www.researchgate.net/public...orm_of_entropy_on_the_horizon_of_the_universe



    To find possibilities for irreversible dynamics should not be underestimated. A standard entropy equation should take into account reversible and irreversible dynamics of a system - that includes systems like Friedmann's universe which does, technically-speaking, deviate it from de Sitter space (one with a constant energy).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_production
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    And I must admit the term supercool region refers to how we look at the BB in a time reversed scenario ie. The big bang phase into the pre-phase. It is like the system is supercooled below its freezing point without forming a solid - we expect there to be a degenerate gas of particles with little thermal kinetic energy.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    The great thing about chaotic systems and non-conservaton is that field theory already predicts in subtle ways, including general relativity, that energy need not be conserved as first principle. Where does it come from, the change in the metric, according to Sean Carrol. Also the forth power over the momentum of virtual particles was once thought to be zero (read Sakharov) but early primordial fluctuation production on the background of curved spacetime proves it may not vanish in the early cosmology like it does in later case.
     
  8. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,998
    Thanks, I will take a look at these.

    You must have missed by other question, to refresh your memory:
    You seem to write with the same style as an individual named Reiku, and if you would humor me on this, my question is are you the same poster as Reiku?
     
  9. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190

    Oh ... you must be mistaken.

    I never missed your other question... its off-topic. I am here to talk about physics, nothing else. I have seen you pester the threads with same question, you'll continue getting a cold silence.
     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,998
    Thought so... picked up on that pretty quickly if I do say so myself!

    Seriously? Unitons are the source of cosmic rays? Uh, nice try.
    Got anything from the last 25 years?

    Never mind, I am not going to waste my time reading articles that appear to be nothing more than a title search and a hope that the article support you.

    Like I said stick to posting random equations - when you try to explain things in your own words you end up saying things like:
    you will have very small thermodynamic properties maybe still exceeding the interparticle distance
    The pre-big bang phase does not need as many particles as that.


    Have fun and good luck ducking the moderators. Bye-bye.
     
  11. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    You are pretty useless aren't you?

    Where in my work did I incorporate unitons? It's a very dated paper, obviously if anything is extracted from a model, I have been careful to incorporate it into a more modern perspective.

    Please don't cherry pick from sources as if the entire source represents an authors view, that's not how references work.
     
  12. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,998
    I put a new radiator in my tractor this weekend that seemed useful.
    You were the one that supplied the article. So exactly which part of the article gives support to your statement, "There could certainly be isodensity between the phase states, there may not be an isothermal phase change - certainly, there would not be one with a pre-state heating into a post state."
    If? You don't know? Interesting...
    Don't give stupid random references, stick with random equations.

    Got go. Going to cut the back field with my nice cool tractor.
    Have fun and keep your head down.
     
  13. Geon Registered Member

    Messages:
    190
    Random equations?

    Do you care to back that assertion up with some valuable expertise from your own side, or are you just bluffing?
     
  14. exchemist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,624
    Neither is the word "cooling". The word used seems to be "condensation". Presumably since the process is the formation of particles with mass from a pre-existing state consisting of radiation. But I would presume that that radiation will, due to its energy, have the same mass as the particles that form from it, by E=mc².
     
  15. The God Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,546
    Bold is mine.
    Radiation has zero rest mass but has momentum. So it is incorrect to say that radiation will have the same mass.....

    You are incorrectly interpretating mass energy equivalence principle.
     
  16. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    I was mainly referring to the
    I assumed the term "critical temperature" to mean exactly what it says. A temperature, which I understood to have cooled from its previous high temperature state.
    It clearly states that under such conditions, massless particles such as the W and Z bosons do acquire mass.
    A conversion from energy to matter?

    But of course that still does not answer the question where the original energy came from. A geometric emergent phenomenon?
     
    Last edited: Aug 30, 2017
  17. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    A belated thought. As I understand it, Energy is causal to energetic expansion, while Matter (physical mass) is causal to gravitational contraction and perhaps at universal scale this process is causal to the universal Pilot wave function. A hierarchy of ordering states, from the very subtle to gross expression in reality.
     
  18. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    You have created a false dichotomy. Energy and mass share one factor. mass.
    If you look at the dimensional units for energy you will find mass. And therefore energy is dependent on mass, and in turn gravity plays a part in both mass and energy.
    Energetic expansion is I guess something you just came up with. Have never heard that term before.
     
  19. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Ever heard of Dark Energy?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy

    So obviously Dark energy either exceeds gravitational forces or is not subject to gravity at all, unlike all other physical matter with mass.

    Does this create a false dichotomy? I am just staying with mainstream science. Of course this could be wrong, but I am not qualified to discard it out of hand.
     
  20. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    Well, Dark Energy has something to do with curvature. Can curvature exceed the speed of light? I am not even sure what that means. And you know what else has to do with curvature. Mass. At this point you should probably draw a diagram or something.
     
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    So, what is your point? The universe is not expanding?
    I posed the question where this initial (dark) energy comes from in the first place.

    If you want to argue dichotomy with mainstream science, have at it. I just quote and try to make a logical argument based on available mainstream science.
     
  22. uhClem Registered Member

    Messages:
    15
    Energy = mass * distance * distance / time * time
    So if "mass is causal with gravity" then energy is too. That was all I was saying. No need to get all agitated.

    So are you saying that Dark Energy is not energy? It seems to me to be that the only mystery is the origin of the dark energy. I believe that it is a constant. Which means that it is the same everywhere and therefore has no speed. And no changing causality.
     
  23. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,100
    Geon's post # 202 links to an interesting site. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
    excerpts;
    and

    It appears that the formation of massive particles by gravitational force also released enormous amounts of energy. Dark energy?
     

Share This Page