Is the Cosmic Expansion Merely a Result of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

[Inductor]

Is cosmic expansion nothing more than compliance with Heisenberg Indeterminacy?

The edge of the Universe presents a very stark line-in-the-sand.

Nature doesn't like such immutable measure re: forced to distinguish between the "known" and the "non-known" Universe.

Could there not exist an inherent Universe-wide, "state of flux" to prevent such otherwise-compulsory cosmic "decision-making?"

Am I applying apples to oranges? : )

I encourage your response. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Naty1]

Is cosmic expansion nothing more than compliance with Heisenberg Indeterminacy?

it's almost certainly more than that.

Likely you are thinking about SPACE alone but it's more likely any such expansion is a spacetime phenomena.

The edge of the Universe presents a very stark line-in-the-sand.

If an edge exists, the "starkness" would likely be limited.

Likely any "edge" would appear as a space time horizon analogous to that of a black hole. As Crowell has posted here a lot recently, nobody knows if the universe if finite or infinite...so nobody knows if there is such a boundary...

As with a black hole horizon or that of an accelerating (Unruh) observer such a "boundary" has multiple interpretations.Different observers, free falling verses distant intertial, make different observations. As Unruh discovered, and I think is generally accepted, the temperature (one type of supposdely "objective" measure) an observer records is a reflection of that observer's acceleration. The horizon of that observer may well be invisible to a distant observer.

And while Heisenberg uncertainty limits observations of a single observer, relativity places limits on what different observers will agree has been observed. So they may disagree about observation of time at any such "edge".

Also, it seems to me the acceleration of the cosmological horizon is only apparent to cosmological distant observers...with an observer at such an "edge", if it exists, wouldn't there be an insufficient cosmological expansion factor (lamda) to observe any expansion?


Another perspective of Hawking and Hartle is a "no boundary" proposal in which they posit imaginary time which behaves just like another direction in space...no boundary to the universe.

Hawking says: ..

...one can avoid having to specify boundary conditions at all if the histories of the universe in imaginary time are closed surfaces, like the surface of the earth. The surface of the Earth doesn't have any boundaries or edges. There are no reliable reports of people falling off.

from Hawking THE UNIVERSE IN A NUTSHELL, 2001
(I don't think this has widespread acceptance.)

Perhaps someone who knows the details of mathematics can comment on what such math suggests. There is a tad here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-boundary_proposal, but frankly I don't know what to make of it.

What do you "see" (observe) at such an horizon? try this recent thread on for size: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=456574

 

[Inductor]

Sounds pretty definitive .. very little room for uncertainty or expansion - Heisenberg-inspired or otherwise. "Full value" response - full marks to Naty1. I happy if only to have had my thoughts - on this matter -merit such considered response. Again: full marks! Bravo magnifico : )