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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Boltzmann Brain problem, exploring its implications in the context of cosmological models, particularly the expansion of the universe and the nature of vacuum fluctuations. Participants examine various scenarios under which Boltzmann brains could emerge, questioning the validity of existing theories and interpretations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that if the universe continues to expand indefinitely, it would lead to the emergence of Boltzmann brains, challenging the standard cosmological model.
  • Others propose that a complete vacuum does not fluctuate, suggesting that this would prevent the emergence of Boltzmann brains, as there would be no sources for their creation.
  • One viewpoint suggests that an infinite universe would result in an infinite number of Boltzmann brains emerging every second, raising questions about the implications of infinite space.
  • Another participant posits that a single particle could lead to the emergence of a Boltzmann brain, but this scenario requires the universe to exist for a finite amount of time.
  • Some participants discuss the conditions under which Boltzmann brains might emerge, including the proximity of particles within the same Hubble volume.
  • Concerns are raised about the interpretations of relevant papers, particularly regarding their reliance on specific interpretations of quantum mechanics, such as the Everettian many-worlds interpretation.
  • There is a contention about whether the universe can ever become empty and the implications of vacuum fluctuations on the Boltzmann Brain problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the Boltzmann Brain problem, with no consensus reached on the implications of vacuum fluctuations or the validity of various cosmological models.

Contextual Notes

Some arguments depend on assumptions about the nature of vacuum fluctuations and the conditions under which Boltzmann brains can emerge. The discussion highlights the complexity of the topic and the need for further exploration of the implications of different cosmological scenarios.

  • #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 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
736
  • · 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