Redshift & Expansion: What Else Is There?

[selfAdjoint]

I tend to think more of fields, with particles appearing as localizations of the fields. So my vague idea is first, high enough temperature that all the forces converge and there is only one uniform field that fills the whole, small, universe. Then as the universe expands and the temperature falls, the forces separate out, and the field transitions to multiple fields, and then the fields develop localizations. At each step the number of posibilities goes up.

 

[Mike2]

essence of particles

I tend to think more of fields, with particles appearing as localizations of the fields. So my vague idea is first, high enough temperature that all the forces converge and there is only one uniform field that fills the whole, small, universe. Then as the universe expands and the temperature falls, the forces separate out, and the field transitions to multiple fields, and then the fields develop localizations. At each step the number of posibilities goes up.

That would be the traditional view, but it begs the question as to where these fields come from. In fact, that would be the Standard Model perspective, wouldn't it? Doesn't String theory model QED and QCD and gravitation all as different modes of the same kind of String? Wouldn't that seem to eliminate any reference to separate quantum fields in favor of one "String field" theory?

I'm trying to develop an intuition about quantum fields. It seems to me that a quantum field cannot be anything like a classical field. If the field is connected and continuous, then any disturbance would have to propagate in all directions and thus any "particle" would have to almost immediately dissipate, right? Or if a field were a piecewise linear thing, where disturbances are discrete, then wouldn't that still require disturbances to dissipate. In fact it would dissipate more quickly since there would come a point where the dissipating wave would not have enough of an effect on its neighborhood to change the next portion by the minimum discrete value. So it would cease to propagate at that point.

So I'm thinking that particles cannot be disturbances of any kind of connected field, since that would require that particles dissipate. And unconnected fields cannot propagate through absolutely nothing. So instead I'm thinking that particles must therefore be the absence of a connected field, places where the field (or spacetime) no longer exists. These are places where spacetime (or at least the field) comes to a boundary. A boundary does not dissipate. Am I right on that point? Then the field only describes the average density of such particles, the probability of finding a particle at a given point.

Furthermore, I am beginning to wonder if strings are a natural choice to describe particles. Why not higher dimensional objects like surfaces? I can certainly visualize how a 3D field can converge on a 2D object; it just stops there. But I'm not sure how a 3D field would converge on a 1D object. It would seem as though one of the dimensions of 3D would have to shrink to zero to fit on a string. Wouldn't that give the same troubles as 3D converging to a point? I would think that if something (particle) actually "exists" inside at least 3D, then you'd have to bump into it no matter which way you approach it. If it exists for all observers, then there can be no possible observer that could not preceive it. But with a 1D string, with no width, it cannot be precieved when viewed on its side. So I think this means that particle must have a 2D surface.

 

[Chronos]

... it may be possible to link the expansion of the universe with the creation of life. The expansion may represent a increase in entropy, and life may be a mechnism to decrease entropy as a balance.

... you may even be able to calculate whether there is life on other planets if you could calculate the decrease in entropy associated with life, even intelligent life.

You might find this interesting [link below]. Harrison's calculations, as he points out, do not yield very satisfying results. The concept and approach, however, is very appealing.

http://www.upscale.utoronto.ca/GeneralInterest/Harrison/BlackHoleThermo/BlackHoleThermo.html