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

Total mass-energy v nature of forces, particles

  1. Aug 29, 2015 #1
    What does the standard model have to say about the relationship between the total mass-energy of the universe and the characteristics of forces and force-carrier particles?

    That is, if the total mass-energy were different, would the nature, strength, … of the forces and force-carrier particles be different?

    Alternatively, would the nature of forces and particles be different at this point in time if the total mass-energy density of the universe were different at this point in time?

    Thx
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 29, 2015 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Which standard model, cosmology or particle physics?
    There is no known causal connection in this direction.
    The opposite direction is true: different coupling strength or boson masses would have lead to a different distribution of the energy, which then leads to a different total energy density due to the expansion of space (it also leads to a different expansion history).
     
  4. Aug 29, 2015 #3
    Thank you, mfb.

    Standard model of both as a baseline.

    In broader terms, I'm interested in insights from a physics / physicalist / materialist perspective (cosmology, particle physics) into the philosophical question of the one and the many, and how the character of particles are related (causally or in a more general sense of relation) to the character of the whole.

    Any further insights would be appreciated.
     
  5. Aug 30, 2015 #4

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We tend not to wander into philosophy of science, it is usually becomes polarizing and counterproductive.
     
  6. Aug 30, 2015 #5
    I should have followed up more directly on mfb's helpful response.

    Iiuc, vacuum genesis (zero-point universe) is not part of the standard model of cosmology. But under that theory, the nature of the quantum fluctuation generating the universe would affect the nature of the constants, laws and, therefore, nature of particles. Correct?
     
  7. Aug 30, 2015 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    "Vacuum genesis" is soooooo speculative, Tempus! You get immediately into a philosophical wonderland. There must be dozens of different scenarios or ways people imagine "vacuum genesis", some producing entirely different constants, if that interests you.

    Here's a simpler explanation for the start of our universe' expansion, where we get exactly these constants and laws that we see.

    Also we get the observable homogeneity and CMB fluctuations, and we don't even need an "inflaton" field---a popular but problematical bit of exotica.

    Just google: "LambdaCDM bounce" and look at the paper by Edward Wilson-Ewing and Yi-fu Cai with approximately that title. LambdaCDM is the technical term, as you probably know, for the standard cosmic model.

    the LamdaCDM universe we see around us could (most simply) have started expanding with a bounce--- from the same universe in a contracting phase, with the same laws.

    No philosophy, no drama. Make up more complex stories at your own risk, but at least check out the simplest scenario. It came out in December 2014, as I recall.

    Ed Wilson-Ewing was the winner of this year's Bronstein Prize, partly in recognition for this work.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook