QuantumT Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 (edited) Is the universe still accelerating? Sometimes I read articles that argue against it, so I'm not totally sure anymore! But if it is, I have a conjecture that might explain it. It is based on quantum fluctuation. (1) I might not be the first to think of it, and (2) it might be mathematical impossible, but here goes: Quantum fluctuation is (as far as I know) considered a come-and-go phenomena. Hello, goodbye. 2 - 2 = 0. But what if it leaves a vacuum? A tiny tiny vacuum? If so, there must be gazillions of tiny vacuums made every second. Speeding up the cosmos? (Sorry if this is wrongly placed! Feel free to move it to Speculation if needed.) Edited May 21, 2019 by QuantumT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swansont Posted May 21, 2019 Share Posted May 21, 2019 36 minutes ago, QuantumT said: (Sorry if this is wrongly placed! Feel free to move it to Speculation if needed.) ! Moderator Note At almost 300 posts in, you should know where “I have a conjecture” should go, and that we need a model and/or evidence - some way to test it. 39 minutes ago, QuantumT said: Quantum fluctuation is (as far as I know) considered a come-and-go phenomena. Hello, goodbye. 1 - 1 = 0. But what if it leaves a vacuum? A tiny tiny vacuum? If so, there must be gazillions of tiny vacuums made every second. Speeding up the cosmos? Most of the universe is already a vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 21, 2019 Author Share Posted May 21, 2019 2 minutes ago, swansont said: ! Moderator Note At almost 300 posts in, you should know where “I have a conjecture” should go, and that we need a model and/or evidence - some way to test it. Thanks for not shutting me down. Yes you are right. I knew where to put it, but I got carried away and hit submit prematurely, because I was confident about the details in it. Regarding evidence, I was hoping the in-house mathematicians could clarify or dismiss it. If not, it seems logic that anything added to a volume adds to it, even if it's a vacuum. Quantum fluctuation is the main culprit behind the big bang singularity after all, so it would only seem logic that fluctuation could also accelerate the cosmos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufofrog Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 15 minutes ago, QuantumT said: Regarding evidence, I was hoping the in-house mathematicians could clarify or dismiss it. If not, it seems logic that anything added to a volume adds to it, even if it's a vacuum. If the virtual particles appear and immediately disappear, then nothing is added. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 8 hours ago, QuantumT said: Is the universe still accelerating? Sometimes I read articles that argue against it, so I'm not totally sure anymore! Yes (as far as we know). Acceleration started relatively recently - about 5 billion years ago I believe. 8 hours ago, QuantumT said: Quantum fluctuation is (as far as I know) considered a come-and-go phenomena. Hello, goodbye. 2 - 2 = 0. But what if it leaves a vacuum? A tiny tiny vacuum? I’m not sure what you mean by “leave a vacuum” or why that would accelerate expansion. There was a vacuum there before and would be again afterwards And wouldn’t creating “more vacuum” (whatever that means) slow expansion? However, the non-zero energy of the vacuum that allows virtual particles to appear and disappear was an obvious candidate for “dark energy” to drive acceleration. The problem is that this energy is about 10120 times too large. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 11 hours ago, Strange said: And wouldn’t creating “more vacuum” (whatever that means) slow expansion? This is my perspective: Spacetime has no problem with vacuum. It is just the void between matter. The more vacuum added (space between matter), the larger (or less dense) the cosmos gets. What I don't know is, if virtual particles has volume? And if that volume is added to space when they appear. If so, my conjecture is that that tiny volume will be replaced by a tiny vacuum after the particles annihilate each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beecee Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 I'm rather confident that the universe continues as a contest between the DE component of spacetime, and the gravity from matter/energy opposing that scenario. The evidence at this time shows that the universe evolved/Inflated from a hotter, denser state, [expansion] which continued to slow down for the first 8 billion years or so. As the mass/energy density continued to decrease with expansion, a point was reached around 5 billion years ago, when the DE component gradually overcome the continued slowing down of the expansion, as mass/energy density decreased, and we are now accelerating in that expansion phase. That is what the evidence tells us, and that is what [at least to me] sounds pretty logical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 46 minutes ago, beecee said: DE component What is that? The energy from the big bang? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted May 22, 2019 Share Posted May 22, 2019 2 hours ago, QuantumT said: What I don't know is, if virtual particles has volume? And if that volume is added to space when they appear. If so, my conjecture is that that tiny volume will be replaced by a tiny vacuum after the particles annihilate each other. Virtual particles have zero volume. But I still don't; really understand why you think they could "create" vacuum. Do you mean create more space between things; ie. push things apart? I'm not sure why they should and, as far as I know, there is no evidence it happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuantumT Posted May 22, 2019 Author Share Posted May 22, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Strange said: Do you mean create more space between things; ie. push things apart? Yes, that's what I meant. 22 minutes ago, Strange said: Virtual particles have zero volume. Although it is sad to be proven wrong I am grateful. So thank you! Now I can move on. Edited May 22, 2019 by QuantumT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted May 23, 2019 Share Posted May 23, 2019 On 5/22/2019 at 3:50 PM, QuantumT said: Although it is sad to be proven wrong I am grateful. So thank you! Now I can move on. And you learn a lot from the process. ! Moderator Note Thread closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts