In 1931 Georges Lemaître, the father of the big bang, hypothesized that a single quantum particle (primeval atom) composed the universe at the beginning stage: “If we go back in the course of time we must find fewer and fewer quanta, until we find all the energy of the universe packed in a few or even in a unique quantum.”
Is there any reason or are there reasons why the universe could not have emerged from a single quantum particle (more fundamental than his primeval atom)? I call such a hypothetical particle the "cosmic quantum" (see www.superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum).
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments, which I appreciated very much.
You implied that the cosmic quantum model (which is not the same as Lemaitre's primeval atom model) is untestable and unprovable. I suppose any model of the very early universe may seem untestable, until someone perhaps shows how it can be tested by its predictions about something that can be measured, such as the inflation model's predictions about the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation. For example, I am hypothesizing that hypothesized cold dark matter particles are structurally closely related to the hypothesized cosmic quantum and therefore could have evolved very early and on a large scale from the cosmic quantum. This could partly explain the origin of dark matter particles and the abundance of dark matter in the very early universe as well as today. This is certainly a falsifiable hypothesis and could also suggest new approaches to detecting cold dark matter particles.
I am familiar with Sternglass' hypothesis about the evolution of the universe from his book "Before the Big Bang". I am not proposing to replace one unknown by another. But a hypothesis that links two scientific unknowns (like the pre-inflationary origin of the big bang and the nature of dark matter particles) could shed light on both questions by raising a perhaps unsuspected possible connection between them, such as a common energy structure.
I make use of Sean Carroll's ideas about entropy in the evolving universe in my cosmic quantum article (at www.superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum). A single quantum particle beginning for our universe could also help account from the very low entropy of our early universe.
The physical universe may well have been born from some prior matrix. I have been a student of yoga philosophy and practice for a number of years. I don't consider physical reality to be the only reality. There could be a two-way evolutionary relationship between mind and matter on a cosmic level. The main thing for me is to keep an open mind and to avoid dogmatic thinking, whether about materialism or consciousness.
Richard,
an interesting question, but there are several issues with Lemaitre's idea.
First, it is unprovable and untestable, second, it looks like unnecessary baggage as there are many other ways a universe can be born out of a prior vacuum through a quantum fluctuation , third, how do you explain the primeval atom in the first place and what does it explain, and so on.
One theoretician who tried to logically build upon Lemaitre's idea was Ernst Sternglass - he devised a full birth of the universe scenario based on the primeval atom idea - his scenario managed to explain even the values of nature's fundamental constants, something that still eludes physics. The only issue with his scenario, of course, was that it posited a sequence of 270 evolutionary steps from the primeval atom - in effect, replacing unexplainable numbers (nature's constants) with another unexplainable number (270) and a number of unexplainable, arbitrarily contrived steps, so that in the end Sternglass's theory only shifted the questions without answering them.
As for the 'primeval atom', unless there is some ulterior motive behind it (Lemaitre was also a priest) it is not necessary if we are to explain the universe as being born from some prior matrix rather than fully ab nihilo.
For instance, Sean Carroll and Jennifer Chen at the Enrico Fermi Institute at the University of Chicago made a calculation of Big Bang occurrence statistics, based on a narrow scenario of Big Bang arising out of random quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy. So as to estimate requisite boundary data values, they calculated the probability that a fluctuation would be large enough to trigger a phenomenon of space-time inflation (it is independently demonstrated that if certain values of vacuum energy are reached, then inflation is triggered). The result of their calculation was an exceedingly small probability value (about ten to the power minus 58 within a set timeframe) however non-zero: i.e., a finite probability of a Big Bang happening from an extant vacuum, without a need for a primeval atom.
Dear Mr Richard!
Yes, the Universe have emerged from a single of singular matter-point a with previously determined energy as result of planning and creation by Great God, with other parallel Universes, and I have a simulation of their movement into toroidal surface...
Best ragards
Also a our Universe (and these parallel Universes) could be borned through a quantum fluctuation out of a prior vacuum without a need for a primeval atom (as wrote Mr Chris Ransford)... and with movement into toroidal surface!
Note: The universe is considered in the 5th dimension as rings that moved on a toroidal surface.
Hello Chris,
Thank you for your very thoughtful comments, which I appreciated very much.
You implied that the cosmic quantum model (which is not the same as Lemaitre's primeval atom model) is untestable and unprovable. I suppose any model of the very early universe may seem untestable, until someone perhaps shows how it can be tested by its predictions about something that can be measured, such as the inflation model's predictions about the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation. For example, I am hypothesizing that hypothesized cold dark matter particles are structurally closely related to the hypothesized cosmic quantum and therefore could have evolved very early and on a large scale from the cosmic quantum. This could partly explain the origin of dark matter particles and the abundance of dark matter in the very early universe as well as today. This is certainly a falsifiable hypothesis and could also suggest new approaches to detecting cold dark matter particles.
I am familiar with Sternglass' hypothesis about the evolution of the universe from his book "Before the Big Bang". I am not proposing to replace one unknown by another. But a hypothesis that links two scientific unknowns (like the pre-inflationary origin of the big bang and the nature of dark matter particles) could shed light on both questions by raising a perhaps unsuspected possible connection between them, such as a common energy structure.
I make use of Sean Carroll's ideas about entropy in the evolving universe in my cosmic quantum article (at www.superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum). A single quantum particle beginning for our universe could also help account from the very low entropy of our early universe.
The physical universe may well have been born from some prior matrix. I have been a student of yoga philosophy and practice for a number of years. I don't consider physical reality to be the only reality. There could be a two-way evolutionary relationship between mind and matter on a cosmic level. The main thing for me is to keep an open mind and to avoid dogmatic thinking, whether about materialism or consciousness.
Actually Richard,
I was narrowly referring to Lemaitre's primeval atom theory as 'untestable and unprovable', other modes of universe genesis are not necessarily untestable and unprovable.
From the math alone, several modes of universe birth can work.
For instance, universe birth by black hole is quite possibly verifiable (a scenario would incidentally do away with the current need to devise contrived theories to explain inflation (see Nikodem Poplawski et al).
Birth from a prior mother universe works like a charm, via a number of possible different 'quantum fluctuation' scenarios.
Also, at the outer fringe end, whether we live in a simulated universe is actually already testable in principle (Martin Savage et al.). And so on.
About 'dark matter particles': all (increasingly desperate) attempts to find dark matter particles have failed, and there is no proof whatsoever that dark matter is actually made up of particles. Insisting on finding such DM particles is beginning to smell more and more of cognitive bias rather than bona fide physics .... There are other scenarios whereby dark matter can emerge in the universe, I for one fail to twig the insistence on finding 'particles', indirect traces of which, if they existed, should have already been found.
Chris, I appreciate the variety of proposed birth models of our current universe. You're right that the search for dark matter particles seems increasingly desperate (but nothing ventured, nothing gained). But so did the Higgs boson search seem until it was found --though long predicted as part of the standard model-- (at a cost of billions of dollars). The dark matter particle search (even if ultimately unsuccessful) may prove even more costly. My dark matter particle candidates (a fermion and a boson) are closely related to my electron model, which, though alternative, is quantum-based and does have the electron's features of charge, spin and magnetic moment, plus several properties from the Dirac equation like zitterbewegung (see www.superluminalquantum.org/transluminal ). My dark matter candidates are both made of a closed photon, so light should easily pass through them; they are uncharged; and they would be considered to be cold dark matter particles (whose mass could be set to be 100Gev/c^2 or another reasonable value). Closer scrutiny of these dark matter particle models by an astrophysicist or particle physicist (preferably a dark matter particle candidate expert) could perhaps disqualify them as dark matter candidates--I welcome such scrutiny. Since the origin of dark matter is very close in time to the big bang and since there is so much of it (relative to baryonic matter), the possible structural link of my dark matter particle candidates to my single-quantum particle model of the very early universe is I think a plus.
The Powerpoint for my APS April presentation "A transluminal energy quantum model of the cosmic quantum" is now up on Research Gate (along with the article it is based on) at https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Richard_Gauthier2/?ev=hdr_xprf
yes every thing is originated by photon the energy packet .in the it was the energy only which converted into mass with due course of time.
if part of the physics of the Universe is that the uncertainty principle exists at arbitrarily early times then Delta E * Delta T > h-bar would mean that Delta E can be arbitrarily large as Delta T is arbitrarily small - but this assume this piece of physics exists at these extremely early times.
Without a mechanism to create mass-energy from nothing mustn't we presume that primordial energy existed in some form prior to the production of spacetime - that our universe properly began with the conversion of energy to mass and the creation of spacetime? Assuming this, there may have been a very first particle that condensed from primordial energy, but universal energy existed before the initiation of the universe as we know it - which is composed of matter, material forces, spacetime and gravitation...
I think we must assume that the physics is somehow imprinted at the time prior to the production of space time, which means that physics is not allow to evolve and appear in the formed Universe. I don't favor the former much but of course the latter is very hard to understand.
With the new BICEP2 astronomical findings supporting the existence of cosmic inflation and gravitational waves, it is becoming more urgent to discuss alternatives to what state of the universe may have existed before cosmic inflation. This could be a good place to comment on such alternatives with their pros and cons.
Hi Richard,
I'm agree with Chris, and believe Universe come from a black hole. I share the Susskind's view about black hole horizon like hologram. Like Universe is a hologram, Universe come from black hole.
Here's a news article about the proposal that the universe may have emerged from a black hole: http://www.universetoday.com/104863/goodbye-big-bang-hello-hyper-black-hole-a-new-theory-on-universes-creation/
I propose that the hypothesized single cosmic quantum (www.superluminalquantum.org/cosmicquantum) at the beginning of our universe had exactly zero entropy. The entropy of our universe increased from zero as the cosmic quantum divided into a variety of types of quantum particles and fields, leading to cosmic inflation, primordial gravitational waves and the hot big bang. The origin of the zero-entropy cosmic quantum would then need to be accounted for, perhaps from a high-information cosmic quantum field.
Dear Colleagues.
The work I have done in principle possible to respond to all inquiries within this universe.
From an information theory based on strings as elements of mathematical processing, it was possible to describe all the strength and constant in this universe. Origins that teem in these calculations. These data are projected in this universe as the parameters of the quantum vacuum. Electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Allowing these two parameters to describe all forces and equations of physics.
Have two jobs that I posted here on the site that demonstrate these calculations very simply. The theory underlying these calculations and complex but the results are very simple. The theory has strings as part of construction of the entire universe. However different m-theory, she analyzes not the energy of the string but the computational aspect. Reduced form of my work demonstrates that the universe has strings as processing element information. These strings create a holographic projection in this universe. and this projection has 5 dimensions. The final understanding and everything and massively parallel quantum computer. And all we see and feel around a great illusion! In this contest what is thought to be the big bang, nothing more and that the flow of information from a parallel universe to our antimatter. and the opposite occurs estremo exact same thing! This structure is a sphere which is complete zero entropy, but the flow of information creates two circular arrows time. one of this universe and another opposite in a universe that to 1x10-16 meters away from this.
I further propose that the cosmic quantum, besides having zero entropy, was also at a temperature of absolute zero (exactly 0 Kelvin), giving off no radiation while it existed. That would make the cosmic quantum the coldest, darkest matter that ever existed in our universe. The cosmic quantum would have eventually given rise to the cold, dark matter that currently composes 26.8% of our current universe, as well as the ordinary matter which composes 4.9% of our current universe, according to the Planck Mission results (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/planck/news/planck20130321.html). The 68.3% of our current universe that is dark energy emerged as our universe expanded to its present state. The cosmic quantum and the cold dark matter particle (or particles) have the same proposed energy structure--that of a closed photon whose circulating energy element is the transluminal energy quantum.
Dear Richard .
An interesting aspect to note the meaning of the strings in the Boltzman constant . If you notice in my work on black bodies will not see this constantly, but it actually has a meaning at the level of the strings .
She and the minimum distance between two strings vibrating . Once we understand how temperature is no more than the average distance between strings set in motion . Giving entedimento entropy and temperature are similar .
Because the higher the average distance between the lower strings order.
To build the universe just mix strings with 3 different power levels and proper proportion . and the universe itself builds . This proportion is precisely the measure of dark energy , dark matter and visible matter , with some small percentage divergence of the value of the mixture .
What I'm saying is that there is a Creator and that man can also create !
I should note that this model until I find I never had religion and was neutral about God . I just think too small to have opinion about something as big as the universe !
Dear Richard .
the phrase went wrong what I meant and that there is a creator, because the universe is a computer.
Dear Rychard
there is a creator, because the universe is a computer.
Dear Richard
my translator seems to not want to admit that God exists!
Lol!
My native language is Portuguese.
So excuse the mistakes.
The cosmic quantum (the hypothesized single-quantum super-high-energy particle from which our universe evolved) has a temperature of exactly T=0 kelvin and an entropy of exactly S=0 Joules/kelvin. Does the cosmic quantum violate the Third Law of thermodynamics, which states “It is impossible by any procedure, no matter how idealized, to reduce any system to the absolute zero of temperature in a finite number of operations”?
There are three possibilities for the cosmic quantum in relation to the Third Law:
1) The cosmic quantum‘s exactly T=0 Kelvin temperature and S=0 entropy might have been produced by cooling a higher temperature (T>0 kelviin) quantum system by an infinite number of operations to T=0 kelvin without violating the Third Law. But an infinite number of operations would require an infinite amount of time, so this possibility seems very unlikely.
2) The Third Law does not apply to the cosmic quantum. But the Third Law is so fundamental and well-established in current physics that this possibility should be considered only as a last resort, particularly since the cosmic quantum is a physical particle subject to physical laws.
3) The cosmic quantum emerged from a non-physical or meta-cosmological space with T=0 and S=0 when our universe began about 13.8 billion years ago, without violating the Third Law, which is a physical law and would not apply in a non-physical space.
The third possibility seems to be the mostly reasonable one. The cosmic quantum could not have evolved in physical space from a higher temperature system in a finite number of operations, according to the Third Law. The process would require an infinite number of operations and therefore an infinite amount of time. There is the more conservative alternative, which would maintain the validity of the Third Law for the cosmic quantum. It is that the cosmic quantum with T=0 and S=0 emerged into physical existence from a non-physical dimension, or rather a meta-cosmological dimension. The properties of a meta-cosmological space or cosmic quantum field that could produce a cosmic quantum in physical space need to be explored. If this third possibility is rejected, then the second possibility, that the Third Law of thermodynamics does not apply to the formation of the cosmic quantum, would have to be accepted.
@Richard: In general relativity, Planck mass is the value for which the Schwarzschild radius and the Compton wavelength are eqaul to the Planck length. Planck energy which is the amount of energy contained in the Planck mass is the maximum energy that can fit into a region of the planck length and would immediately collapse into a black hole. How do you get around this problem in your Transluminal Energy Quantum Model where the energy and radius of the cosmic quantum far exceeds the limits of Planck energy and Planck length.
Hello Vikram,
Thanks for your question. We all know that general relativity and quantum mechanics are completely incompatible at and below the Planck size range. A theory of quantum gravity is therefore much needed and much sought after (so far unsuccessfully). A successful theory of quantum gravity could easily be compatible with the concept of the cosmic quantum as well as a cosmic quantum field from which it emerged.
All right, if Universe have emerged from a single quantum particle, anywhere - it is created by God!
Richard,
We like to presume that gravitation is one of the 'fundamental forces' of matter that can be described by quantum theory - alternatively, gravity may be an emergent property of spacetime, not a fundamental interaction of matter - there may be good reason it does not easily fit within the framework of quantum field theory...
Hello Mohamed,
Thank your for your supportive and clear answer. In researching Cantorian fractal spacetime I found that you have done very significant research in this area. For others' benefit, I refer to http://esi-topics.com/nhp/2006/september-06-MohamedElNaschie.html .
I am also very interested in unification approaches, and unification has happened several times in physics history as you mentioned in your interview. My latest work is on finding possible unification between the photon and the electron. It was featured in a photonics magazine and newletter a few days ago at http://www.opli.net/opli_magazine/eo/2015/is-the-electron-a-spin-1-2-charged-photon-sept-news/ . The main article on which this news article is based is at https://www.academia.edu/15686831/Electrons_are_spin_1_2_charged_photons_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength , with a summary article at https://www.academia.edu/15272484/The_electron_is_a_helically-circulating_spin-1_2_charged_photon_generating_the_de_Broglie_wavelength . Here I am proposing that the wave-particle duality of the electron may be explained if the electron is a circulating spin 1/2 charged photon (a proposed new variety of photon). This could have implications for understanding the double slit experiment for an electron and a photon, which you analyzed as part of your mathematical research. I wonder if your mathematical research may give further insights into the possible unification of the understanding of the electron and the photon, as fundamental but currently distinct particles of physics.
with best wishes,
Richard
Hello Mohamed,
Thank you for the link to your 2004 interview, which I read with much interest. It seems that you made much progress towards a theory uniting gravity with quantum theory. Has your theory made new testable predictions about the origin of the universe, or cosmic inflation and the big bang, or the expanding and accelerating universe, or dark matter and such topics? Were you able to predict the mass of the electron and other particles precisely?
with best regards,
Richard
Dear Richard,
even if your question could appear more philosophical than a serious scientific one, nowadays one can give a mathematical answer well supported by a robust theory. I refer to my quantum geometrodynamic theory that has unified Einstein's GR with QM. (See http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1468121812000491 )
In fact we can transfer this question as a boundary value problem in the quantum super Yang-Mills PDE, (say (YM)), and to prove that our universe can be encoded as a solution in (YM), starting from a suitable point in (YM). For details see http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.4856.
Therefore, one can answer in the affirmative to your question, whether you identify the 'Lemaître's cosmic quantum' with such initial point of (YM).
My best regards,
Agostino
Hello Agostino,
Thanks for your affirmative answer, and best wishes with your research.
Richard
Hello Mohamed,
I was able to download your recent open access paper at http://www.scirp.org/journal/ijaa/ . It was just published on Oct 12, 2015. I wish you much success with your approach.
Richard
Dear Richard,
thanks for the coordinates of the Mohamed's paper. In this way I was able to read this interesting work.
Dear Mohamed,
I appreciated your formulation, however I have some criticism that I shortly resume in the following points.
1) The wave-universe is a good idea, but formulated inside the de Witt-Wheeler approach to QM does not allow understand the noncommutative quantum logic of the quantum world. In other words, this is a criticism to de Witt-Wheeler approach, that, as it is well known, does not solve the unification of the Einstein's GR with QM.
2) You state that your formulation ... solves 'without violating any fundamental laws of relativity or quantum theory'. But whether we admit the origin of universe from nothing, we must conserve the vacuum quantum numbers. In other words, the full energy of the wave-universe should be zero ! This is impossible in your formulation.
Above criticism can be solved adopting my quantum gravity formulation. Then it is possible to understand that our universe expands, thanks to the conservation of energy, a fundamental property of the quantum super Yang-Mills PDEs, as I formulated. See my previous post in this (and also other) thread.
My best regards,
Agostino
My view is 'particles,' being a part of something, emerged solely from that something, i.e., a c-squared light wave. This geodesically-curved (by the least action or time principles), and l agree with Richard Gauthier, ultimately helically-curved, light travel must slow (deceleration; 'gravity') while rounding the sharper (relatively nonlinear) points of a geodesic curve, thereby as slowed energy, aka matter, and depending on the measureable radii or points of curvature along the geodesic or helix, forming self-similarly from the initial Planck length minima (any reference frame): quanta, spin, charges (from scaled self-similar spin), nuclei, electrons, atoms, chemical elements, DNA, stars, planets, galaxies, and finally more or less a rugby ball-shaped universe (cf. Grigori Perelman's Poincare conjecture solution) -- all l also propose at the predictive distribution rate (speed) of the continuous, golden ratio limit of limits, following the geodesic or helical or rugby ball curvature in turn as well as Ulam's spiral or primes and prime gaps (dark matter-energy) distribution.
Hello Cj Nev,
Thanks. There's a lot in your comments. Do you have a link to an article by you on this subject?
Richard
Hello Richard,
Thank you for your comments. My forthcoming article will contain a fuller treatment of the subject with the tentative title, "The Gravity of Light Travel: Unified Relativity from h to c2." I am hoping for reaction from anybody to this much. So far none really, l'd like to think due perhaps to the uniqueness of essentially: (1) The geodesic (shortest path) curvature, that c2 light as the fastest phenomenon travels along, slows light, thereby forming matter, self-similarly from quanta to the largest galaxies and back again, (2) predictively distributed at these critical points according to the golden spiral or Ulam spiral.
- Badges
- Science topic