Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
sethoflagos

The Big Bangy Field Equation

Recommended Posts

Three questions have recently been bothering me.

 

If the universe originated (as I read on a lavatory wall somewhere) as a field of superimposed probabilities of all possible futures:

 

1) Would that field be necessarily bounded in any dimension before any 'actual' future began to unfold?

 

2) Is there any damning reason why the fundamental constants of our universe could not be quantum variables, initially indeterminate?

 

3) Would combinations of fundamental constants that led to eternally expanding, species diverse universes have more 'quantum votes' (ie a higher probability of manifesting themselves) due to their greater number of permutations than those combinations that led to finite universes supporting a low diversity of elemental species?

 

Many thanks in advance for your considered points of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What does "field of superimposed probabilities" actually mean? To the untrained ear, it sounds like word salad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang says nothing about T=0.

It only describes what happens once expansion begins.

 

I don't know what your first statement means, maybe you could re-frame it ?

 

1 I would think dimensions emerged with expansion, the three spatial dimensions and the time dimension may have become 'macro' but there may yet be compacted dimensions at Planck scales. In all cases we can say nothing about 'external' or embedding dimensions, so the simplest assumption is there aren't any.

 

2 You could have different choices, like a pencil balanced on its tip, to fall over in any direction. Once you break that rotational symmetry by pushing the pencil over on its side, it now has a fixed direction, symmetry has been broken and you only have a single choice. So yes, a symmetry break could 'fix' what was previously variable.

 

3 I have no idea why an outcome favoring complexity would be more preferable than one with limited complexity.

( and preferable to whom ? )

Edited by MigL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the universe originated (as I read on a lavatory wall somewhere) as a field of superimposed probabilities of all possible futures

How can the universe originate as a field of probabilities? Then what determined are current 'future'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Big Bang says nothing about T=0.

It only describes what happens once expansion begins.

 

I don't know what your first statement means, maybe you could re-frame it ?

 

 

Difficult to rephrase it without presupposing part of the answer. As I picture it, it's a Schrödinger equation describing the time evolution of the universe (or all possible universes courtesy of the superposition principle of quantum mechanics) in some kind of primordial Hilbert space.

 

 

 

3 I have no idea why an outcome favoring complexity would be more preferable than one with limited complexity.

( and preferable to whom ? )

 

Don't know where 'preferable' came from, Your invention not mine. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics favours such outcomes. I guess I'm looking for some parallel between the 2nd Law and the time evolution of superimposed quantum states. They are both essentially statistical in behaviour after all,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I equate your field of super imposed probabilities to my field of infinite possibilities, and my infinite invariable to the singularity that set everything in motion. I represent the infinite invariable as a Y with all the possibilities extending away from the Y. The Y is the single event in time that was caused by all the other events. as to what those events were, I guess you would have had to been close to middle of the Y to have witnessed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Big Bang says nothing about T=0.

It only describes what happens once expansion begins.

 

I don't know what your first statement means, maybe you could re-frame it ?

 

GR falls apart as you approach zero because, IIRC, infinities starting popping up, so a new theory is needed that involves QT, which doesn't exist yet.

Edited by StringJunky

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GR falls apart as you approach zero, so a new theory is needed that involves QT, which doesn't exist yet.

 

We're getting too hung up on t=0 here.

 

Question 1) is really a general question about whether the quantum fields for a finite system at any particular instant extend throughout spacetime (even if the precise future geometry of spacetime were somewhat indeterminate).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we now considering a "lavatory wall" as a primary source of physics knowledge?

 

Will there be a thread on that fellow from Nantucket?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.