Saturday, June 8, 2024

The Goldilocks Enigma – Part Five


 

By Laura Knight-Jadczyk

In the previous post we learned that, apparently, the better our technology, the older the universe appears to be.  Hubble can, apparently, see 28 billion years back in time. We also learned that the universe is unbounded, but still finite, but we still cannot see over the cosmic visual horizon.  We also learned that, apparently, we are more or less trapped in our 3 dimensional world and it is irrelevant that we may be embedded in some higher dimensional space since we can’t perceive it.  I’m not so sure about that since I have long thought that what we call ‘paranormal’ may actually be instances of perception of other/higher dimensions.  We touched on how other dimensions could be hidden from us and Davies mentioned compactification and branes. We also learned that it seems that it appears to be necessary for us to live in a 3D world since a 4D world (or higher) would not be sustainable;  3 dimensions are ‘just right’.  Ark added a note that he would not be surprised if there is both compactification and branes as well as other possibilities to explain what is going on that hides other dimensions from us.  Finally, I included two articles that appear to contradict the Standard Model which I am endeavoring to describe in these posts.

So now, let us continue.  Among the top requirements for a life-friendly universe is a good supply of the chemical elements that are utilized to make and sustain living organisms.  Scientists have been able to use the ‘hot big bang’ theory to extrapolate how these chemicals came into being.  Apparently, at the moment of the big bang, such elements did not exist because, at one second after the big bang, the temperature was about ten billion degrees.  Atoms cannot survive those temperatures, so, at that moment, there was only searing hot plasma of ‘freely moving atomic components.’  Now, Davies writes that “even atomic nuclei would be smashed apart” at such high temperatures, but when he writes that the plasma was composed of ‘atomic components’ he lists protons, neutrons and electrons and I cannot help but ask: where did the protons, neutrons and electrons come from? Who/what decided that plasma should/could/would be composed of these little critters that can make atoms?  According to Wikipedia: “By the first second, the universe is made up of fundamental particles and energy: quarks, electrons, photons, neutrinos and less familiar types. These particles smash together to form protons and neutrons.”  It seems to me that these ‘fundamental particles’ might tell us something about the nature of the alleged primordial mass that ‘exploded’ and became the universe. Well, anyway, let me quote Davies here:

“Most of the protons that came out of the big bang remained free, and were destined to form hydrogen atoms once the universe had cooled enough for each proton to capture an electron.  (That final step didn’t happen for nearly 400,000 years.)  Meanwhile, however, not all the protons were left isolated.  Some of them collided with neutrons and stuck to form deuterium, a relatively rare isotope of hydrogen with one proton and one neutron apiece in each nucleus.  Other protons became incorporated into helium, the next simplest element, which has a nucleus consisting of two protons and two neutrons.  What I am describing is nuclear fusions, a process which is very well understood.  Protons and neutrons could begin combining together to make composite nuclei only once the temperature had fallen enough so that the newly minted nuclei would not immediately be fragmented again by the intense heat.  The window of opportunity for nuclear fusion was limited, however, opening up at 100 seconds or so and closing again after only a few minutes.  Once the temperature dropped below about a hundred million degrees, fusion ground to a halt because the protons lacked the energy to overcome their mutual electrical repulsion.”

Apparently scientists can also calculate how much helium was made and how many protons were left over to make hydrogen and the answer is three hydrogen atoms to every helium atom and nothing else except a tiny amount of deuterium and lithium. The ratio is apparently confirmed by astronomical observations since every chemical element, in the light they emit, have a spectral ‘barcode’ by which they are identified.

So, we know that the universe is made mostly of hydrogen and helium in a 3 to 1 ratio and helium is a relic of the first minutes of the big bang.  

The processes of the big bang have been tested and confirmed in high energy physics experiments in atom colliders such as Brookhaven National Laboratories. Scientists there can see what happened at the point the universe was “squeezed into a volume of space no larger the solar system, with temperature almost a million times hotter than the center of the sun.  It turns out that under these extreme conditions even protons and neutrons cannot exist as discrete entities.  Instead, they were melded into an amorphous cocktail of subnuclear fragments.” But still, I ask, where did those subnuclear fragments come from and what can they tell us? There is an alternative idea that tries to suss out this problem:

Quantized Elementary Alternatives 

The quantum theory of the elementary alternative was formulated by German physicist and philosopher Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker in a series of papers entitled Komplementarität und Logik (Complementarity and Logic) I-III between 1955 and 1958. Weizsäcker calls the elementary alternative ‘das Ur’ (pronounced more like ‘poor’ than ‘pure’), after the German prefix ur-, denoting something like primitive or primordial (compare: Ursuppe, the primordial soup, or Urknall, the primordial bang, or big bang). Hence, the theory of the elementary alternative is known as ur theory, which doesn’t do its googleability any favors.

Weizsäcker’s starting point thus is basic logic—how we should reason about the things in the world. Complementarity, then, is the central phenomenon of quantum theory that entails the necessity of formulating the description of a system in terms that are both mutually exclusive and jointly necessary (as in wave/particle duality; see the previous discussion here). As Weizsäcker argues, this should be a fundamental building block of the logic used to reason about and construct scientific theories. But this itself constrains the theories that can be built, in surprising and illuminating ways.

Weizsäcker’s outlook is, thus, at first brush broadly Kantian: there are certain concepts that we may consider ‘innate’, that dictate the form of our experience of the world. Kant considered, e. g., space and time to be among these; hence, no non-spatial experience is possible, or even imaginable.

This is a break with the atomist tradition. Rather than simply being at the receiving end of unbiased data emanating from the world, the observer in this picture mediates the data through the process of observation—thus, the sorts of theories that can be built do not describe unvarnished reality, but the experience of an observer in the world. The idea of an observer-less world is immediately nonsensical, as the notion of ‘world’ carries that of the ‘observer’ with it.

From there, Weizsäcker proposes to build a theory of physics, taking as its point of origin nothing but the ur theory, that is, the quantum theory of the elementary alternative—the qubit, in modern parlance. In this way, he proposed an information-theoretic grounding for physics three decades before Wheeler ever coined the famous slogan ‘It from Bit’.

Getting back to Davies: notice that he wrote that the universe was “squeezed into a volume of space no larger the solar system, with temperature almost a million times hotter than the center of the sun.” Our solar system is pretty darn big relative to our planet and us.  Voyager 1 has been traveling for more than 40 years and still has not escaped the influence of our sun at almost 14 billion miles out.  So that ‘primordial atom thingy’ was really huge.  Was it flat like a pancake or round like a ball? What was it? How did it come into being?

Whatever it was, apparently the science tells us that the universe doubled in size between 1 and 2 microseconds (a millionth of a second), but by one second, the expansion rate had dropped to a trillionth of what it was at one microsecond.  The apparent reason for this rapid slow-down was gravitation. The attraction between all forms of matter put the brakes on especially because of the extraordinarily compressed state of matter at the time, i.e. that giant, solar-system sized ‘primal atom’.  Notice that we are talking about matter before matter was supposed to exist.  It was “an amorphous cocktail of subnuclear fragments” that we don’t know anything about.

Davies provides a graph of the rate of expansion of the universe that resembles the curved line designated ‘open’ in the graph below:


The caption beneath Davies’ single line graph says: “How the size of the universe should increase with time according to the general theory of relativity.  It starts out expanding explosively fast at the big bang origin, but progressively slows as the attractive force of gravitation acts like a brake.”  Obviously, there is some discussion about whether the universe is open or not nowadays. 

·       Open universe: One that continues to expand. Gravity slows the rate of expansion but is not strong enough to stop it.

·       Closed universe: One that will eventually collapse back on itself. This would result in a BIG CRUNCH which is the reverse of the Big Bang.

·       Flat universe: The force of gravity keeps slowing down the expansion but theoretically, it'll take an infinite amount of time for it to come to rest.

Research in this area is ongoing and much is not well understood, so keep that in mind.  In 1997, cosmologists determined that the universe appears to be more open  than expected.  They concluded that there must be some other previously unknown force, acting in opposition to gravity, which is pushing the universe apart. This was designated ‘Dark Energy’.

In any event, it appears that the rate of expansion vs deceleration played a very important role in the physical processes taking place at a given time and this was extremely important for the creation of the atoms that are necessary to life. So it appears as though this whole process was ‘controlled’ in some way so as to definitely result in a life-friendly environment. As Davies writes:

“Our universe has picked a happy compromise: it expands slowly enough to permit galaxies, stars and planets to form, but not so slowly as to risk rapid collapse.  … Explosions are normally rather messy affairs. If the big bang has been slightly uneven, so that the expansion rate in one direction outstripped that in another, then over time the universe would have grown more and more lopsided as the faster galaxies receded.  We don’t see that.  Evidently the big bang had exactly the same vigour in all directions, and in all regions of space, tuned to very high precision.  How has the entire cosmos cooperated to achieve this?”  

Enter theoretical physicist Alan Guth.  Guth’s idea was ‘inflation’ as opposed to ‘expansion.’  According to Guth, the traditional big bang didn’t need to be uniform or orchestrated, it could be as messy as any other explosion.  Then, the universe almost immediately jumped in size by a huge factor.  An analogy would be something that jumps from the size of a proton to the size of a grapefruit virtually instantaneously.  At that point, the rapid ‘inflation’ stopped and normal ‘expansion’ took over as according to the given story of the early universe as already described.  This almost instantaneous inflation has the effect of smoothing the universe the same way blowing up a balloon gets rid of any wrinkles.  


Guth’s idea also included that inflating space in this way made it less curved; inflated enough and it is indistinguishable from flat. Et voila!  Inflation explains uniformity and the apparent flat geometry of space! 


Now, I don’t know about you, but this instantaneous ginormous expansion smacks of the paranormal to me.  You know, cases where objects sort of just materialize out of nowhere and are just suddenly there. But, whatever floats your boat.  Davies acknowledges this:

“Guth’s inflation seems little more than a magic wand.  It would have fallen on deaf ears had Guth not provided a credible physical mechanism to explain how inflation might have occurred… The gravitational pull of the universe serves to diminish the expansion rate progressively.  Inflation does just the opposite: it is a brief episode in which the expansion rate accelerates hugely, causing the universe to swell up super-fast.  Guth proposed that a type of antigravity force was responsible.”  

Conveniently, anti-gravity is built into Einstein’s general theory of relativity.  But where does it come from? Guth proposed a scalar field and he called this hypothetical entity the ‘inflation field.’

(Wikipedia: In affine geometry, uniform scaling (or isotropic scaling) is a linear transformation that enlarges (increases) or shrinks (diminishes) objects by a scale factor that is the same in all directions. The result of uniform scaling is similar (in the geometric sense) to the original. A scale factor of 1 is normally allowed, so that congruent shapes are also classed as similar. Uniform scaling happens, for example, when enlarging or reducing a photograph, or when creating a scale model of a building, car, airplane, etc.)


Back to Davies’ explanation:

“In Newton’s theory, gravitation is generated by mass.  In Einstein’s general theory of relativity, mass is also a source of gravitation, as is energy (remember that Einstein’s equation E = mc2 tells us that energy has mass).  But it doesn’t stop there.  Pressure too is a source of gravitation in the general theory of relativity. …if the pressure gets seriously big, it can rival the energy in its gravitating power. ‘Seriously big’ here means the sort of pressure found inside a collapsing star … Another example, however, is a scalar field: it has a pressure comparable to its energy. …But why does the scalar field produce anti-gravity?  The crucial factor is the pressure: for a scalar field it is negative.  Negative pressure isn’t especially exotic: it is no more than what we normally call tension – a stretched elastic band provides a familiar example.  In three dimensions, a block of rubber pulled in all directions would have negative pressure.  Now negative pressure implies negative gravitation – a repulsive, antigravity force.  So a scalar field generates gravity by virtue of its energy, but antigravity by virtue of its (negative) pressure.  A calculation shows that the antigravity beats the gravity by a factor of three, so the net effect of the scalar field is to antigravitate.”

So it was: Guth theorized that during the first instant after the birth of the universe a scalar field permeated space exerting a powerful antigravity effect which induced the universe to leap into runaway expansion. (What manifested this scalar field? How did it come into being?) This antigravity effect had to be strong enough to overpower the incredible gravity of the ‘normal matter in the universe,’ i.e. the solar system sized primal atom.  He plugged in some numbers and discovered that the antigravity would not only easily overwhelm the universe, it would be so strong that the universe would double in sized every 1014 seconds. 

The only problem is: what stopped this almost unthinkable expansion?  Guth had an answer for that: the inflation field was inherently unstable and only existed for a brief time.  It just decayed and disappeared, more or less.  Poof! And once it disappeared, then the big bang proceeded according to the Standard Model. Well, more or less.  According to Guth, the energy stored in the inflation field became heat and it was this heat that created protons and electrons and all the 1050 tons of matter in the universe.  Afterward, with the field decayed, the CMB represents the remnants of the inflation field.

In any event, Guth’s theory had a flaw: the exit from inflation. Note he thought it was just ‘inherently unstable’, but the decay of the inflation field is a quantum process and thus is subject to the usual unpredictability of quantum fluctuations.  Davies writes:

“As a result, it would decay at different times in different places, in the form of randomly distributed bubbles – bubbles of space, that is, in which the inflation field had decayed surrounded by regions of space where it had not.  The energy given up by the decayed inflation field would be concentrated in the bubble walls.  Bubble collisions would release this energy, as heat, but the process would be utterly chaotic and generate as much inhomogeneity as inflation was designed to remove.  … The solution was to find a theoretical scheme that would avoid bubble collisions and enable the bubbles to grow to a size much larger than the observable universe.  One way to do this is called eternal inflation.”

One thing to notice here: by its very nature, inflation erases the record of what went before and makes it impossible to deal with the question: What caused the Big Bang and what was before it?  Inflation may help to explain the fundamental features of the universe, describing them as purely physical processes, but it appears to prevent penetrating beyond that.

I don’t care much about the fancy mathematical/terminological footwork going on here, what he is describing still amounts to manifesting something out of nothing or something moving between dimensions and suddenly appearing as an apport.  Notice also that nobody has yet observed a scalar field, according to Davies.

We live in a universe that doesn’t just allow life, it appears to promote it.  If any one of a goodly number of physical properties of our universe were other than they are, life would be impossible.  And so, next time I will continue to probe into these problems and look at the solutions and explanations that have been offered.  
P.S. 09-06-24 18:31 (A.J.)

Part five of Jay Campbell's podcasts series with Laura


P.S. 10-06-24 14:27 (A.J.)


P.S. 10-06-24 14:34 (A.J.)

Academia.edu is starting a new journal "Quantum". The scope of this new journal includes:

• Biological quantum systems
• Engineering for Quantum Hardware
• Foundational Quantum Mechanics and Theory with a focus on experimental observables
• Materials for quantum technologies
• Metrology and Instrumentation
• Quantum Algorithms and Machine Learning
• Quantum Chemistry
• Quantum Communications, Security and Cryptography
• Quantum Computing and Simulation
• Quantum Gravity and Cosmology
• Quantum Information Theory and Processing
• Quantum Imaging and Photonics
• Quantum Physics and Thermodynamics

Look at the statistics of the Editorial Board:




What strikes me is that in the Editorial Board we have Ukraine, but no China, no Germany and No Russian Federation. During today's zoom meeting of the Board I was assured that there is no politics involved. I am skeptical, but suppose. But then, how to explain this "phenomenon"? The Chance and the Survival of the Fittest at work? There must be more than that.


P.S. 14-06-24 15:04 (A.J.)




No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment..

Sunday Special - From Fairy Tales to Math: The Power of Threes

  Ever noticed how many things come in threes? Like in a story, three chances always seem just right, or in comedy, the third punchline real...