Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Expansion of Universe and fine structure.

  1. Oct 16, 2004 #1

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Standard cosmology says that the universe is expanding, and is expanding at an accelerated rate. If the fine structure of universe is not changing, this expansion means that units of empty space are constantly being created.

    We know, however, that empty space is not empty, and that the vacuum has a ground state consisting of ZPE fields. These fields include an EM field of virtual particle-antiparticle pairs that has been calculated to have over 120 OOM more energy than that required to account for the cosmological constant, so if ZPE plays a role in expansion, the mechanism is fine-tuned to over 120 decimal places.

    If the universe is expanding and the fine structure of the universe is not changing, the standard cosmological model must embrace the continuous creation of more and more ZPE particle pairs. The members of these pairs have opposite attributes and cancel in all respects but one: each member has mass (both gravitational and inertial - although the equivalence is assumed, and not proven). Quantum theory says that the ZPE fields arise out of fluctuations in the ground state of the vacuum, and that the energy deficit is acceptable as long as the pairs annihilate within a time bounded by the uncertainty principle. This is fine in a static reference frame, but it seems to me that when you express the ZPE in the standard model, the sum of the energy expressed in the ZPE EM field must increase with expansion, and it must increase at an accelerated pace if expansion accelerates.

    Does anybody here have links to papers that explicitly address this situation?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 16, 2004 #2
    Yes, this is called the cosmological constant problem. See:
    http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/archive/00000398/00/cosconstant.pdf
     
  4. Oct 16, 2004 #3

    hellfire

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    It is usually assumed that the cosmological constant has an associated energy-momentum tensor. This energy is identified with the vacuum energy of the sum of all matter fields. The cosmological constant is a scalar field and has a constant energy density. Thus, when a given volume expands, the energy within it must increase. I have already asked here a long time ago about energy conservation in case of space expansion and did not have any clear answer. I see two possibilities which may explain this: either you consider that energy conservation does not apply in a Robertson-Walker spacetime (I am not sure whether this a valid argument or not, but considering radiation redshift leads me to assume that energy conservation may not apply) or you may alternatively consider that the gravitational energy (negative gravitational potential) of the cosmological constant compensates its energy density (similary as during inflation with the inflaton). I have not seen this issue addressed anywhere.
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2004
  5. Oct 16, 2004 #4

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thanks, Mike2 - I should have stated the conundrum more succinctly. I have tracked down and read many papers regarding the cosmological constant problem, and I alluded to the magnitude of the problem ("over 120 OOM") above. What I was looking for was a study of the situation that arises when:

    1) the universe expands, AND
    2) the fine structure of the universe remains constant

    To me, this situation implies that the total energy of the ZPE fields in the vaucuum must be increasing at the same accelerating rate that the universe is expanding. More quanta of "empty" space implies more ZPE EM virtual pairs to inhabit them. I would like to know if and how this effect has been addressed in standard cosmology.
     
  6. Oct 16, 2004 #5

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You grasp the significance of the problem, and I thank you for the clarification. I am not a great fan of standard cosmology, but I am not trying to use this issue to drive a stake through it's heart. I would very much like to know how researchers in standard cosmologies have addressed this question, or if indeed it has been addressed at all.
     
  7. Oct 16, 2004 #6
    You talk about the ZPE increasing simply because the universe is expanding. Have you considered what effect that matter disappearing behind the cosmological horizon would have on this ZPE? It may not be the entire universe that you need to consider, but only that part we can now see, or perhaps that part that we will ever see.
     
  8. Oct 16, 2004 #7

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Maybe red shift is caused by an effect other than recession and the universe is not expanding?

    Garth
     
  9. Oct 16, 2004 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you suggest that the mass/energy disappearing behind our cosmological horizons (as envisioned in a standard big bang model with accelerating expansion) is balanced (or at least somewhat offset) by an increase in the total energy of the ZPE fields in our observable universe as it expands?

    It's a neat concept, but it would throw a wrench in the works (or a sabot in the cogs for we who are of French heritage) of standard cosmologies. The problems arising from that "balance" would include superluminal communication and preferred reference frames, at a minimum, and with a couple of minutes' thought, you can probably dig up a half-dozen more.
     
  10. Oct 16, 2004 #9

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Might I ask, what is the mechanism for "cosmological" redshift in SCC? Do you envision a tired-light approach. As you know, I think that there is a non-cosmological-expansion mechanism (ZPE fields = aether) for much of the redshifts we observe, and there is a VERY non-cosmological explanation for the anomalous redshifts of seemingly physically-connected objects cited in the works of Arp, Burbidge and others.
     
  11. Oct 16, 2004 #10

    Garth

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Indeed you may ask.

    I consider cosmological red shifts to be just that, that they are cosmological rather than local in nature. The relatively few anomalous red shifts cited by Arp have to be considered carefully but against a backdrop of a vastly greater number of others. The case that the anomalous red shifts are statistically significant I think is still unproven, their alignment could be just chance.

    Cosmological red shift in SCC is interpreted in two equivalent ways in the two conformal frames of measurement. In the Einstein conformal frame particle masses are conserved, rulers are fixed and clocks are regular, just as in GR. However the presence of a BD type scalar field results in strictly linear expansion, a freely coasting universe as discussed elsewhere in these forums. In that frame cosmological red shift is recessional in nature as usual.

    However in the Jordan conformal frame energy is conserved, and as a consequence of the cosmological field equations particle masses increase, rulers shrink and clocks speed up, all exponentially according to exp(Ht). In particular the energy and hence frequency of a photon is conserved. Hence when such a photon is emitted by one atom and absorbed by another in a later cosmological epoch it is the atom that has increased in mass and a red shift is observed. It is the opposite of the tired light theory, why should light get 'tired'? It travels along a null geodesic with no forces acting on it, no work is done in its travels so why should it loose energy? No it is the apparatus measuring it that has gained energy and consequently mass.

    Garth
     
    Last edited: Oct 16, 2004
  12. Oct 17, 2004 #11
    When the physical volume increase because of expansion, does this imply that relatively speaking, the volume of an electron is decreasing? This volume decrease of the electron does not affect its inertial mass or energy so that local gauge invariance is possible for the fine structure constant since it is just the difference in energies
    [itex]E_1 [/itex] and [itex]E_2[/itex] no matter how their amounts vary the difference is always a constant

    [tex] E_1 - E_2 = h \nu_1 - h \nu_2 = h \left(\nu_1 - \nu_2 \right) [/tex]

    the general covariance of the frequencies is implied. That is to say both frequencies either both increase or both decrease by the same amount simultaneously. It is not possible for one frequency to increase and the other decreases.
     
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2004
  13. Oct 17, 2004 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Thank you for the explanation. If I understand correctly, every observer in your universe model has a preferred reference frame, and his reference frame is always more condensed, with smaller fine structure, and faster clocks than could be inferred by the EM radiation arriving from his cosmologically distant neighbors.

    I was not a real fan of the tired light theory, either, until I started modeling space-time as a sea of virtual particles. As for tired light in my (math-poor) model: light interacts with the media it traverses, and it's speed is dependant on the density of the media. (basic optics) According to quantum field theory, there is no such thing as a pure vacuum, and the "vacuum" of space is suffused with a sea of virtual particles. The speed of light in a vacuum, then, is an ideal approximation only, since a true vacuum cannot exist. (It has been proposed that light will propogate faster when traversing the space between the plates of a Casimir device, where the ZPE field is suppressed, although that space will still not be a true vacuum.) If light can lose even a tiny bit of energy through its interaction with the "aether" of the ZPE EM field, it will be redshifted, and the redshift will be roughly proportional to the distance between the emittor and the receptor (ignoring intervening variations in field density). When we're looking at a light path that is measured in millions or billions of light-years, even the most trivial loss of energy will create a measurable redshift.
     
  14. Oct 17, 2004 #13
    Isn't it just as likely that the virtual particles of the ZPE field would increase the energy of photons traveling throught it, so that on the average it has no effect?
     
  15. Oct 17, 2004 #14

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I just found this paper today by Bell that examines the distribution of of over 5000 high-redshift quasars in the SDSS (z=2.4-4.8). Quasars may have preferred redshift values, after all, which would argue for intrinsic redhsift in these objects. Previous studies regarding instrisic redshifts arising at preferred values have used much smaller samples - this one at least has a large population.

    http://citebase.eprints.org/cgi-bin/citations?id=oai:arXiv.org:astro-ph/0409025
     
  16. Oct 19, 2004 #15
    If space is expanding at faster than light speed, causing ZPE to self create, what would be observed from the frame of reference of this fine particle activity as time goes backwards?
    Negative energy density or some form of Casimir vacuum?
     
  17. Oct 19, 2004 #16

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Interesting concept! Projecting back toward a singularity, we should expect that the total mass/energy of the ZPE field would be reduced. Hmmm....
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Expansion of Universe and fine structure.
  1. Universal Expansion? (Replies: 30)

Loading...