Did Space Have Properties Before the Big Bang?

[wolram]

The actual origin of the ZPE on this approach has several schools of thought. One in
particular is the logical result of this treatment. Since charged particles in motion emit
electromagnetic radiation, this school of thought proposes that “the sum of all particle
motions throughout the Universe generates the zero-point fields” and that in turn “the
zero-point fields drive the motion of all particles of matter in the Universe … as a self-
regenerating cosmological feedback cycle” 16. On this explanation the ZPE becomes an
artifact of atomic particle existence. By contrast, Planck’s second theory reversed this
order; it directly implied that the ZPE was the cosmological entity that influenced atomic
particle behaviour, and not vice versa.
_______________________________________________________________________
this is where i get confused, which came first,vauum energy or
atomic particles ?it seems one cannot exist without the other.
best wishes.

 

[marcus]

Frank and unbiased is high praise indeed and I thank you. In a spirit of reciprocity I have edited out the linebreaks in the interesting passage you posted earlier. This makes it easier for me, and possibly others, to read.

Originally posted by wolram
abstract from wikipidia.
http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Links/Papers/Setterfield.pdf
A paper published in May 1987 shows how the problem may be resolved[69]. The Abstract summarizes: “the ground state of the hydrogen atom can be precisely defined as resulting from a dynamic equilibrium between radiation emitted due to acceleration of the electron in its ground state orbit and radiation absorbed from the zero-point fluctuations of the background vacuum electromagnetic field…” In other words, the electron can be considered as continually radiating away its energy, but simultaneously absorbing a compensating amount of energy from the ZPE sea in which the atom is immersed.

In a similar way, a child on a swing gets a push just as the swing starts to slow down, and a resonance is set up between the period of the swing and the frequency of the pushes. So the orbiting electron also gets resonantly timed pushes from the ZPE that keep it going.

This had been explained earlier in a parallel, but even more enlightening way as part of a course on stochastic processes applied to physics. The statement was made[47]:
“With somewhat more quantitative estimations, Boyer [70] and Claverie and Diner [71] have shown that if one considers circular orbits only, then one obtains an equilibrium radius of the expected size [the Bohr radius]: for smaller distances, the electron absorbs too much energy from the [ZPE] field…and tends to escape, whereas for larger distances it radiates too much and tends to fall towards the nucleus."

 

[marcus]

Originally posted by wolram
this is where i get confused, which came first,vauum energy or
atomic particles? it seems one cannot exist without the other.
best wishes.

are you really confused
or are simply making a point that
here is a scientific theory with two component
(vacuum and matter)
and it is impossible, within the theory, to
ascribe priority to one over the other

it may be that this symmetric interdependence
is a desirable feature of a theory

since I am not familiar with this I must stop
discussing it, at least for the present
all I can tell you is that cosmologists say
the (unexplained, dark, cosmological etc) energy
density is roughly one joule per cubic kilometer
or, more precisely 0.6 joules per cubic km.
I find it astonishing if not preposterous that they can claim
to know this, but must accept the opinion of
established professional experts, given the
extent of agreement.

 

[zydubion]

Physical space can't expand. Space is not physical, that's why it's called space. There are however physical particles in space that move about or expand out into further reaches of space. Space is the non-physical universe. It has no size, it is infinite. It is infinite nothingness until you come upon an occasional star or whatever.

 

[wolram]

thankyou for your support, but your opinions are in
the minority along with mine.
my mind cannot comprehend a bounded space so i think of
space as infinite
but beware there are minds out there that can comprehend
allmost anything.
best wishes

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by zydubion
Physical space can't expand. Space is not physical, that's why it's called space.

What is it then, spiritual? According to GR "space" is not "nothingness" and is just the metric of something else. See http://itss.raytheon.com/cafe/qadir/q2442.html

There are however physical particles in space that move about or expand out into further reaches of space. Space is the non-physical universe. It has no size, it is infinite. It is infinite nothingness until you come upon an occasional star or whatever.

But remember that space in modern physics is the dynamic spacetime of GR, and can curve, expand, contract, etc.

 

[marcus]

zudubion says this:

Physical space can't expand. Space is not physical, that's why it's called space. There are however physical particles in space that move about or expand out into further reaches of space. Space is the non-physical universe. It has no size, it is infinite. It is infinite nothingness until you come upon an occasional star or whatever.

------------------
maybe we have only verbal disagreements

a relativist does not claim that space is material, but only that there can be distances defined between things----a "metric" function, which is relationall

when a cosmologist says "space expands" it simply means that the distance function is increasing. It is a (perhaps confusing, perhaps unwise) manner of speaking

"space expands" is a statement about distance-relations, and it is unfortunate if the listener gets the notion that space is an object with some absolute existence which is somehow realer than the relations between things.
---------

wolrams replies to zudubion

thankyou for your support, but your opinions are in
the minority along with mine.
my mind cannot comprehend a bounded space so i think of
space as infinite...

________________

this sounds amazingly mainstream for someone who claims minority status

This is just my take on it but I believe it is normal for astronomers to assume space infinite largely because it would be an infernal nuisance to add junk to the model to make it bounded
there's no solid evidence that it is bounded so the simplest thing is to assume it isnt
and by good fortune that seems also to generate a good fit to cosmological data
or so it seems at present anyway

as for minds out there which are capable of believing anything probably the barbarians have always been and always will be at the gates especially at physicsforums which seems to be a noteworthy kook-magnet.

 

[wolram]

it was just a mommentary slip MARCUS i promise to be more
anti establishment in the future