How do we resolve the Boltzmann Brain problem

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter carl_sebastian
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Boltzmann Brain
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Boltzmann Brain problem, particularly in the context of an expanding universe. Participants argue that if the universe continues to expand indefinitely, it leads to the emergence of Boltzmann brains, which contradicts the standard cosmological model. The "big rip" scenario is proposed as a potential resolution to the Hubble tension, suggesting that dark energy could become increasingly dominant. Key references include the Wikipedia page on Boltzmann brains and several academic papers that explore vacuum fluctuations and their implications for the existence of Boltzmann brains.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Boltzmann brains and their implications in cosmology
  • Familiarity with dark energy and the concept of the "big rip"
  • Knowledge of vacuum fluctuations in quantum mechanics
  • Awareness of the Hubble tension and its significance in cosmological models
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of vacuum fluctuations on quantum mechanics and cosmology
  • Explore the "big rip" scenario and its effects on the future of the universe
  • Study the Hubble tension and current theories addressing it
  • Investigate the philosophical implications of Boltzmann brains in the context of consciousness
USEFUL FOR

Cosmologists, physicists, and philosophers interested in the implications of quantum mechanics on cosmological theories, particularly those exploring the nature of consciousness and the fate of the universe.

  • #31
PeterDonis said:
That's one of the topics treated in the Carroll paper that @kimbyd linked to earlier in the thread. Basically, in order to have horizon radiation, you have to have a detector present that measures it. But in a true de Sitter vacuum, there are no such detectors. (There's also the point that such a detector would have to be accelerated, but the one particle in the de Sitter vacuum will be in free fall.)

But why isn't my one electron a detector? It detects the horizon radiation by Compton scattering.
 
Space news on Phys.org
  • #32
charters said:
why isn't my one electron a detector?

Because there is no other state it can transition to. See below.

charters said:
It detects the horizon radiation by Compton scattering.

No, it can't. The electron is in free fall, so the vacuum is in its ground state; that means the electron can't gain energy from the vacuum through Compton scattering, since that would imply that the vacuum could lose energy from the ground state, which is impossible since the ground state is the state of lowest energy. And the electron is in its ground state, so it can't lose energy to the vacuum through inverse Compton scattering either.

Another way of looking at it is to note that the vacuum is isotropic to the electron--the same in all directions. But Compton scattering would mean there was a preferred direction to the vacuum.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: charters
  • #33
PeterDonis said:
Another way of looking at it is to note that the vacuum is isotropic to the electron--the same in all directions. But Compton scattering would mean there was a preferred direction to the vacuum.

Hmm I think this made it click for me. Could I equivalently say something like there is indeed some amplitude for the electron to Compton scatter off horizon radiation from the east, but also the same is true for radiation coming from the west, and these processes have to interfere destructively?
 
  • #34
charters said:
Could I equivalently say something like there is indeed some amplitude for the electron to Compton scatter off horizon radiation from the east, but also the same is true for radiation coming from the west, and these processes have to interfere destructively?

As a heuristic picture, perhaps, but I don't know that there is anything corresponding to this in the math.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: charters
  • #35
charters said:
But this one particle - let's say an electron - should still be receiving Hawking type thermal radiation from the de Sitter horizon, which can Compton scatter off it. Get lucky a few times where the photon is high energy, and you can pair produce some leptons and nucleons, which then happen to tunnel and bind into proteins, etc., and soon you've got a brain in a vat. It happens once every ##10^{10^{10}}## years at best, but we've got infinite time and space. To be clear, I have a suspicion this can't be correct, but what's my error?
Ofc one of your assumptions must be wrong and i think the error is assuming infinite time over big rip or something else that would be the end our our (current) universe.
 
  • #36
PeterDonis said:
Basically, in order to have horizon radiation, you have to have a detector present that measures it.
There is zero evidence for that, you are just trying to save a failing cosmological model.
 
  • Sad
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy
  • #37
carl_sebastian said:
There is zero evidence for that

Zero evidence for what? We certainly have zero evidence for horizon radiation actually existing, yes. It's just a theoretical concept.

carl_sebastian said:
you are just trying to save a failing cosmological model

Ok, enough is enough. Thread closed, and you have just earned yourself a warning.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: weirdoguy

Similar threads

  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K