A Question for Physicists/Astrophysicists

c0de

c0de

Vassal
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
2
Points
0
A chaotic system is by definition deterministic. And one of the characteristics of a chaotic system is bifurcation.

The Question is this: During the first moments of the big bang, the phenomenon responsible for converting energy into matter was pair production. Would there be a way to prove/test that this pair production happened in a way consistent with chaotic bifurcation?

Observe this Lorenz-type fractal. While doing so, imagine the first moments of the big bang.... is it not possible that the pair production followed this "pattern" ? Would there be a way to test this? I would imagine you would need to recreate the big bang and then observe pair production in action... Can the LHC be used to simulate this in some way? I would think it should since it deals with interactions that took place during the Planck era, yea?

Lets say you prove that it did happen in such a way, how close are we then to saying that the universe is a chaotic system? Would this alone prove it? Imagine the implications of such a result... Keep in mind that a chaotic system, is by definition deterministic.

mcmfeig_b.gif
 
I asked this question in class yesterday and the prof just kinda stood there for like 4 seconds... like he just had a zen moment... it was funny. He said that no one, that he was aware of, ever looked at such a possible connection. Even though, he said there were some efforts at recognizing the universe as a chaotic model. I ran a google search and did not really find anything either.

I joined an Advanced Physics Forum and posted the question there. The reason I am posting it here is because I am not a physicist, and I suspect I might get some answers there which are... out of my league. I am not even a science major (unless you count Political Science as a science lol). This course I am taking is just an introduction to Physics for non-science students, so like physics without the math.

So if anyone does have any thoughts, please keep 'em simple enough for a PolSci/History student to understand. Gracias/Merci/Obrigado/Xie'xie/Shukria/Arigato/Thanks :)
 
I saw the thread title, hoping to be able to provide an answer.

However, I'm stumped. Initially, it looks profound.

Perhaps I should try and find the email address of one of the really high-brow physicists?
 
I said:
Perhaps I should try and find the email address of one of the really high-brow physicists?
Click to expand...

If it helps, tell them that if they prove such a connection they should at least get a nobel prize out of it. On the down side, whoever does end up proving it might just become the most hated person in the world, as he would end up shattering the concept of free-will...


p.s. One answer on the Physics forum that I got so far does say that such an experiment would be possible. It would probably be hard to distinguish matter fro anti-matter particles, but it could probably be done. I wonder if someone will actually do this... that would be.... something.
 
Your first given is that there was a "big bang". By no means proven in fact and only supported by gross simplifications of general relativity. You state "the phenomenon responsible for converting energy into matter was pair production", but surely you mean the phenomenaresponsible for converting energy into matter enabled pair production. As you correctly state according to the physics they use to describe this model the universe was at that time in a planck state in which quantum uncertainty ruled. Equally in chaotic models even pairs diverge due to fundamental unpredictability as your diagram amply illustrates. So where is the determinism? According to this model the quantum uncertainty of the early universe actually states we cannot know, measure or study it so its a rather moot point. Additionally there is more and more observational data coming through that the inflationary model this all derives from is fundamentally flawed. Regions of space are now seen to have independent motion and that means a 'from a single point' inflation cannot be the truth.


tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
Your first given is that there was a "big bang". By no means proven in fact and only supported by gross simplifications of general relativity.
Click to expand...



While very few researchers now doubt the Big Bang occurred, the scientific community was once divided between supporters of the Big Bang and those of alternative cosmological models. Throughout the historical development of the subject, problems with the Big Bang theory were posed in the context of a scientific controversy regarding which model could best describe the cosmological observations (see the history section above). With the overwhelming consensus in the community today supporting the Big Bang model, many of these problems are remembered as being mainly of historical interest; the solutions to them have been obtained either through modifications to the theory or as the result of better observations. Other issues, such as the cuspy halo problem and the dwarf galaxy problem of cold dark matter, are not considered to be fatal as it is anticipated that they can be solved through further refinements of the theory.

The core ideas of the Big Bang—the expansion, the early hot state, the formation of helium, the formation of galaxies—are derived from many independent observations including abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and Type Ia supernovae, and can hardly be doubted as important and real features of our universe.

Precise modern models of the Big Bang appeal to various exotic physical phenomena that have not been observed in terrestrial laboratory experiments or incorporated into the Standard Model of particle physics. Of these features, dark energy and dark matter are considered the most secure, while inflation and baryogenesis remain speculative: they provide satisfying explanations for important features of the early universe, but could be replaced by alternative ideas without affecting the rest of the theory.[40] Explanations for such phenomena remain at the frontiers of inquiry in physics.




So where is the determinism? ....... they use to describe this model the universe was at that time in a planck state in which quantum uncertainty ruled.
Click to expand...

Its all about how you interpret the math. Quantum phenomenon are not considered to be causal or chaotic... but I have heard that such interpretations do exist for Quantum Mechanics.


Regions of space are now seen to have independent motion and that means a 'from a single point' inflation cannot be the truth.
Click to expand...

Maybe... It doesn't cancel our the big bang though.
 
Could be worth shooting David Deutsche an email and seeing whether he thinks there's any relevance in the chaos aspect:
David Deutsch - Home

He's one of the biggest proponents of multiverses, and certainly one of the more interesting physicists around. A gentle enquiring email may prompt a useful response. :)
 
c0de said:
Maybe... It doesn't cancel our the big bang though.
Click to expand...

It may not cancel out 'a' Big Bang but that it was responsible for the creation of everything in our observable universe I find hard to swallow. Much that is "unorthodox" is published but allowed to quietly disappear. For example I have seen reports of stars that have been spectrographically dated at 17 and 18 billion years old, quite amazing in a universe under 14 billion years old. Type 1a supernova were thought to have a uniform brightness yet in the past year several have been observed that cannot/ do not conform to that idea. Indeed 1 was many orders of magnitude more violent than any previously observed. As it is from type 1a supernova alone that the size of the universe is determined if the uniform brightness hypothesis, (which is really nothing more than a convenient model cosmologists 'invented'), is wrong we actually have no way to determine the age of the universe. Even the red-shift of the most distant quasars is contested now as being in effect an illusion caused by varying motion, like currents, in large scale space.

Likewise the background microwave survey carried out by Chandra only shows that the universe has a fairly uniform temperature. To say that it fits the Big Bang model is not good enough as it could also fit other models too. As can the relative abundance of light elements. Most compelling of all for me is that until a decade ago the Big Bang Gang thought they had their theory stitched up watertight. But then new discoveries were made that showed the motion of the galactic clusters and individual galactic rotation was not explained in their model. There was all that missing mass. In fact 93% of the mass that should be there was not. So they invented mysterious dark matter and they set about making that story stick. But where else except here would you get a 93% error and still remain credible? It is incredible!!

If the universe is a black hole then this missing mass effect we observe can be easilly understood, as can the violent erruption we call the big bang. As a black hole much of the universe is held, in effect, as potential in a quantum vacuum. Its mass is everywhere and nowhere all at once. Like galactic supermassive black holes there is some instability, feeding periods and innactive periods. Perhaps what we percieve as the big bang was a feeding period as observed from within a black hole and we are currently in a relatively stable innactive state at the moment. This is not pie in the sky. If the universe is the size cosmologists think and the mass is roughly that observed then our universe does have the same mass/size as we would expect from a black hole of that scale. It fits nicely into infinite universe theories too, imagine our universe as an SMBH at the core of a galaxy an order of magnitude up, sitting in a bigger iniverse that is itself just another black hole. All sitting together in a multiverse of infinite potential.


Of course all of this is just idle speculation. But no more so than Big Bang theory, and I do not care what the orthodoxy say, as they do not have any better idea than anybody else, just they have the right ears and the bigger budgets. Until we full understand what quantum potential is it is weeing into the wind to suggest any theory is right. We are a long way from knowing even how our local universe behaves and as it is chaotic and fundamentally divergent, holding unmeasurable potentials, no scientist is yet even close to understanding it.

tao
 



@ Tao + Brian


I did receive a reply from David Deutsch, he says that as far as he knows, there is no way to test such a hypothesis. :(

However, in my email to him I did not suggest using the LHC, which maybe he overlooked? Or maybe it really is untestable... Also, like Tao, he added that because it was a quantum proccess (planck state) he expected any chaotic behaviour to have been washed out soon by quantum randomness.

I was thinking I should reply to him at first with the same response that I gave Tao, only this time with the following sources about experiments which have tested Quantum Chaos but I figured it wouldn't be worth it. No point in an amateur trying to convince an expert,I figured. I always knew that the quantum world was never "random" though, cuz of my hardcore bias against anything being "random". So this new research is comforting for me at least. This is why I still believe there is hope for the hypothesis.

Complex Quantum Systems, Research – Quantum Chaos

Quantum Dynamical Manifestation of Chaotic Behavior in the Process of Entangleme

SpringerLink - Book Chapter


Now to the big bang. Yes Tao you are right in pointing out all the flaws in the theory. Personally, I have no sympathy for the dark matter explanation either. And the alternative theories, like the Big Bounce or multi-verse are also there, but there are major speculations there to as you pointed out. A greater understanding of QM will no doubt add to our explanations of the universe(s). I do like to believe in the initial big bang concept though, even if it ends up being limited. The universe is most likely better explained by combining different aspects of different theories.
 
Great.... even the person on the Physics forum took back his initial assertion that such a hypothesis would be testable.... It would probably need some genius mind to figure this out... Apparently the problem lies in differentiating the matter and anti matter particles. Theres gotta be some way to test this... They spent billions on that damn LHC!
 
I think one of the big problems is the great math behind it. It's almost a Hitchhiker's Guide-esque scenario, where a super computer will need to be built just to pose the question, let alone provide an answer. :)
 
I said:
I think one of the big problems is the great math behind it. It's almost a Hitchhiker's Guide-esque scenario, where a super computer will need to be built just to pose the question, let alone provide an answer. :)
Click to expand...

in other words...

SCIENCE = FAIL



... AnD NoW F0r sOmEthinG C0mplEtlEy DiffEreNt



halloween.jpg
 
c0de said:
in other words...

SCIENCE = FAIL
Click to expand...
I would not go that far. You cannot really fail when you speculate and build theoretical models. They are all useful. Maybe only 1 theory in 100 will produce any real progress but that is still progressive evolution. If we carry on making such progress for a few more 1000 years then at the very least we will have ruled out a lot of junk. What we are left with will become ever more refined and meaningful and leave us with better questions. I do not see that as failure.

tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
I would not go that far. You cannot really fail when you speculate and build theoretical models. They are all useful. Maybe only 1 theory in 100 will produce any real progress but that is still progressive evolution. If we carry on making such progress for a few more 1000 years then at the very least we will have ruled out a lot of junk. What we are left with will become ever more refined and meaningful and leave us with better questions. I do not see that as failure.

tao
Click to expand...


d00de.... dun take everything I say so seriously

it was a joke...

ReLaX
 
Tao_Equus said:
Now whatever gave you the impression I take you seriously? ;)

tao
Click to expand...

hmmm well lets see... Your long winded replies to my non-serious comments (which were never addressing you to begin with, btw) maybe? ... No wonder you missed the sarcasm in Farhan's post on the other thread as well ... and then you ended up typing this whole spiel about how he was a maniac... LOL. That wuz klassic

but seriously dude... just... chill. relax... have a cup of green tea and try some breathing exercises or something.
 
c0de said:
hmmm well lets see... Your long winded replies to my non-serious comments (which were never addressing you to begin with, btw) maybe? ... No wonder you missed the sarcasm in Farhan's post on the other thread as well ... and then you ended up typing this whole spiel about how he was a maniac... LOL. That wuz klassic

but seriously dude... just... chill. relax... have a cup of green tea and try some breathing exercises or something.
Click to expand...

Perhaps it is you who takes me too seriously ;)

As for Farhan, I have encountered his posts for far longer than you have been around and he has often displayed sympathy with suicide bombers and Islamic extremists in general. You may have seen his post as humour but to me it fits the typical pattern of his barely disguised sympathies.

tao
 
Tao_Equus said:
As for Farhan, I have encountered his posts for far longer than you have been around and he has often displayed sympathy with suicide bombers and Islamic extremists in general.
Click to expand...


(lol) yea... forgive me if I choose not to take your word for it.


You may have seen his post as humour but to me it fits the typical pattern of his barely disguised sympathies.
Click to expand...

again with the paranoia... i'm tellin you dude, Green Tea... it works.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top