The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by Israel Socratus /

[socrat44]

  The existing interpretation of quantum mechanics is contrary to common sense. 
        WHY?
================

  The Universe from Nothing: T=0K. / by Israel Socratus /
====...
Maybe 99% thinks that everything began from big-bang.
A few % have another opinion:
Book 'A universe from nothing' by Lavrence M. Kruass.
===.
My opinion.
Why  everything was started from Nothing ?
Because there is fundamental fact in Nature :
The critical density in the whole Universe  is so small
that it cannot 'close'  the Universe into sphere.
And therefore the Universe as whole is flat - infinite flat.
But what to do with 'infinity' physicists don't know
and they try to escape (throw  out) concept of 'infinity'.
===..
I say that infinite (eternal) nothing has one physical
parameter: T=0K  and therefore  nothing is not nothingness.
We can use many theories to understand condition of T=0K continuum :

1) Theory of ideal gas  ( temperature is T=0K )
2) Hawking black hole radiation  ( temperature is T=0K )
3)  Bose-Einstein condensate  ( temperature is T=0K )
4) Dark energy  ( nothing is some kind of infinite energy )
5) Dark matter  ( consist of virtual particles, antiparticles )
6) SRT   ( explain behavior of quantum particles in nothingness )
7) QT   ( explain the reason and laws of quantum particles behavior )

These theories are subject for rethinking and ,by the way,
   such interpretation   obeys  Occam's  razor.
============...
P.S.
Scientists say:
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) was proved
     that Big Bang  theory is correct.
     My opinion.
Have you see the waves on the surface of sea ?
But deep down of  the sea  , you know, the picture is different.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is only surface of infinite zero vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) is a false vacuum.
Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR ) is result of work
(fluctuation) of virtual particles.
Deep down of the 'Dirac's sea'  is state of  zero vacuum  T=0K
  with potential negative virtual particles: - E=Mc^2.
And according to the 'Law of conservation  and transformation  energy/mass'
these   virtual negative  particles  can change their potential state
into real  active positive  particles with energy E=hf.
( Casimir effect, Lamb shift )
Quantum effects (fluctuations)  are dominate in the Universe.
=====================
Best wishes
Israel Sadovnik Socratus
============================

[nicolle38]

Why not say, "the Universe is infinite" and it is just our local part of the Universe that is expanding? The "proof" of this is that as better telescopes look out further, still the star systems are fully formed. We should be seeing just clouds of gas forming slowly into shapes. But no. We see fully formed stars as far back in the past as we can see.

[BurtJordaan]

We should be seeing just clouds of gas forming slowly into shapes. But no. We see fully formed stars as far back in the past as we can see.

We can never in a 10000 human lifetimes actually see galaxies forming - it just happen too slowly, but as we look at the distant universe, hence earlier and earlier in times, we do see galaxies at various stages of being formed.

We do see that "clouds" that you mentioned as the CMB - which is the farthest that we can ever see optically. There is a "dark region" in-between and the CMB and then we see galaxies. We physically understand this 'dark stage' from known physics at those densities and energies.

What we observe fits our best cosmological models, so the models are pretty close to "as good as it gets" - but there are always room for improvement, of course.

How much have you read up on the current cosmological models?

[BurtJordaan]

Socrat44, what is the point that you are trying to make?

[socrat44]

Socrat44, what is the point that you are trying to make?

a) the Universe as whole is infinite / eternal, zero vacuum: T=0K.
b) the amount of all matter in Universe (galaxies and etc) is very few
therefore universe as a whole is flat .
c) in this flat infinite universe in some local place galaxies were created.
d) the gravitation laws don't work even in a single galaxy therefore was invented
'dark matter - and dark energy' more than 90% of all substance in universe.
nobody knows their parameters.
e) the gravitation laws are local laws.
=================================.

[BurtJordaan]

Do have a theory (paper) that supports these claims mathematically?

Claims a), b), d) at least, are not what is observed. Pure speculation is not allow in the Astro-Cosmo subforum.

[socrat44]

Do have a theory (paper) that supports these claims mathematically?

Claims a), b), d) at least, are not what is observed.
Pure speculation is not allow in the Astro-Cosmo subforum.

Every point of a), b), c), . . . etc. has physical law.
For example:
a - b) why the universe as whole is infinite and flat?
Because critical density of all masses in the universe is very small
about -10^30 and therefore these masses cannot close the universe
into sphere it means the universe is flat and infinity.

And every my confirmation has physical law.

========================================.

[BurtJordaan]

Every point of a), b), c), . . . etc. has physical law.
For example:
a - b) why the universe as whole is infinite and flat?
Because critical density of all masses in the universe is very small
about -10^30 and therefore these masses cannot close the universe
into sphere it means the universe is flat and infinity.

No. All the normal matter in the universe has only 5% of the mass needed to make the universe flat. If that was all we had, space would have been negatively curved, not flat. This is the physical law, coming from Einstein's general relativity.

Now, we observe the effects of about 25% of some unseen matter (e.g. dark matter), but even adding that in, our space cannot be flat - it is still negatively curved. Yet we have observational proof (from CMB) that it is very, very close to spatially flat.

Please do not speculate - show a credible reference and then we can continue here; otherwise this thread will be shifted to somewhere other than the Cosmology section.

[socrat44]

Every point of a), b), c), . . . etc. has physical law.
For example:
a - b) why the universe as whole is infinite and flat?
Because critical density of all masses in the universe is very small
about -10^30 and therefore these masses cannot close the universe
into sphere it means the universe is flat and infinity.

No. All the normal matter in the universe has only 5% of the mass needed to make the universe flat.
If that was all we had, space would have been negatively curved, not flat.
This is the physical law, coming from Einstein's general relativity.

Now, we observe the effects of about 25% of some unseen matter (e.g. dark matter),
but even adding that in, our space cannot be flat - it is still negatively curved.
Yet we have observational proof (from CMB) that it is very, very close to spatially flat.

Please do not speculate - show a credible reference and then we can continue here;
otherwise this thread will be shifted to somewhere other than the Cosmology section.

Dark matter makes up 26.5 percent of the matter-energy composition of the universe;
the rest is dark energy (73 percent) and “ordinary” visible matter (0.5 percent).

https://www.britannica.com/science/dark-matter

But it is an important mystery. It turns out that roughly 68% of the universe is dark energy.
Dark matter makes up about 27%.
The rest - everything on Earth, everything ever observed with all of our instruments,
all normal matter - adds up to less than 5% of the universe.

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/f ... ark-energy

Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%[note 1] of total mass,
while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content

visible stars and gas inside galaxies and clusters account for less than 10% of the ordinary matter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter

==========================================.
Conclusion

Visible, normal, ordinary matter in the universe is so few ( 0, 5%- less than 5% - less than 10% )
that universe as whole cannot be 'closed' , it can be 'open' - flat, infinite flat.

============================================

[BurtJordaan]

Conclusion

Visible, normal, ordinary matter in the universe is so few ( 0, 5%- less than 5% - less than 10% )
that universe as whole cannot be 'closed' , it can be 'open' - flat, infinite flat.

Wrong conclusion. Open, perhaps infinite, but not flat - with so small an amount of matter and nothing else, it would be negatively curved like the surface of a saddle - where the inside angles of a triangle add up to less than 180 degrees. This is not what we observe when we look at the CMB.

[socrat44]

Conclusion

Visible, normal, ordinary matter in the universe is so few ( 0, 5%- less than 5% - less than 10% )
that universe as whole cannot be 'closed' , it can be 'open' - flat, infinite flat.

Wrong conclusion. Open, perhaps infinite, but not flat

Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy
prior to the WMAP results.
WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision.
We now know (as of 2013)
that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.

https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

NASA Official: Dr. Edward J. Wollack
Page Updated: Friday, 01-24-2014
==========================

[hyksos]

On second thought -- I'm not sure what the first post is. It looks like scattered notes from a lecture that flew by too fast. It's like he has notebooks that he jots notes down and then copy-pastes those notes into the forum.

Later posts here seem to have completely formed sentences.

[BurtJordaan]

Socrat, my comment was about your inference that 5% matter makes the universe spatially flat - that is simply not correct. You need precisely 100% of critical density to make it spatially flat.

You are correct that it the observed spatial flatness (including dark matter and dark energy) is within 0.5% of flat, but that means it can still be closed, flat or open. It may be so close that we will never know on which side it actually is.

[socrat44]

It may be so close that we will never know on which side it actually is.

Yeah, maybe the universe as closed as our planet, . . . .
it is hard to say on which side of closed planet we live,
it always revolves around something
================

[socrat44]

Together with Brandon Carter and Jim Bardeen, Hawking wrote a paper, published
. . . . .
. . . the team commented, '' In fact the effective temperature of a black hole is
absolute zero . . . No radiation could be emitted from the hole.''

/ Book: Stephan Hawking,  A life in science,
by Michael White  and John Gribbin,  page 156./

Later, using concept of entropy and Heisenberg uncertainty principle,
Hawking changed his mind and wrote that black hole can emit
( Hawking radiation )
============================================

[socrat44]

Physics Professor Baumgarte Describes 100 Years of Gravity
April 1, 2015
"Special relativity is based on the observation that the speed of light is always the same,
independently of who measures it, or how fast the source of the light is moving with
respect to the observer. Einstein demonstrated that as an immediate consequence,
space and time can no longer be independent, but should rather be considered
a new joint entity called "spacetime. But special relativity describes physics in the absence
of gravity, whereas general relativity describes gravity in terms of the curvature of spacetime.

http://community.bowdoin.edu/news/2015/ ... f-gravity/


Today scientists are trying to reconcile Newton's absolute time and Einstein's spacetime.

========================================

[socrat44]

Gravity in the Electric Universe
Where does gravity fit in the electric universe?
Contrary to a fairly common misperception, the electric universe does not deny
gravity’s existence, nor its role in the cosmos and our own world.
Rather, the electric universe theory, as proposed by physicist Wal Thornhill,
suggests that the fundamental mysteries of gravity may be explained
by the electrical structure of matter.

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2017/0 ... pace-news/

====================
My opinion.
Zero Vacuum (T=0K) is itself some kind of an Infinity Energy continuum ( universe).
Where does gravity fit in the infinity T=0K electric-energy universe?

a) according to quantum theory the Zero Vacuum (T=0K) being energy continuum
can create only potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2.
b) these potential - virtual negative energy particles: -E=Mc^2 somehow
can transformed themselves into real energetic particles: E=h*f
c) these real energetic particles somehow can create local gravity - solar system.
=========================

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.
To create local gravity - solar system is needed EM force.
================

[BurtJordaan]

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

All forms of energy create gravitational fields, but all forms of energy do not create electromagnetic fields. Hence gravity is not indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

[socrat44]

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

All forms of energy create gravitational fields,
but all forms of energy do not create electromagnetic fields.
Hence gravity is not indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

Are you joking Mr. BurtJordaan ?
====================

[socrat44]

a) According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent
aspects of objective reality

b) In Einstein's theories, the ideas of absolute time and space were superseded by
the notion of absolute spacetime in special relativity, and curved absolute spacetime
in general relativity

c) SRT is theory without gravity but with an absolute spacetime.
It means, we need to take Newton's absolute time and Newton's absolute space
simultaneously together in order to have Einstein's spacetime.
Newton's absolute time + Newton's absolute space = Einstein's spacetime.

d) And this absolute spacetime can be curved by masses ( for example:
      by Sun masses ) in some local region of absolute Einstein's spacetime.

e) According to GRT the curvature depends on masses and its speed.
And because masses (of stars and planets) are different so every local
region has its own gravity-space and gravity-time.  For example: Earth
has its own gravity-space and gravity-time,  and Venus or Mars has
another gravity-space and gravity-time. But for humans on the Earth
their Earth's gravity-space and Earth's gravity-time seems absolute.

==========================================

[BurtJordaan]

Gravity is indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

All forms of energy create gravitational fields,
but all forms of energy do not create electromagnetic fields.
Hence gravity is not indivisible from the electromagnetic force.

Are you joking Mr. BurtJordaan ?
====================

No, absolutely serious!

[socrat44]

a) According to Newton, absolute time and space respectively are independent
aspects of objective reality

b) In Einstein's theories, the ideas of absolute time and space were superseded by
the notion of absolute spacetime in special relativity, and curved absolute spacetime
in general relativity

c) SRT is theory without gravity but with an absolute spacetime.
It means, we need to take Newton's absolute time and Newton's absolute space
simultaneously together in order to have Einstein's spacetime.
Newton's absolute time + Newton's absolute space = Einstein's spacetime.

d) And this absolute spacetime can be curved by masses ( for example:
      by Sun masses ) in some local region of absolute Einstein's spacetime.

e) According to GRT the curvature depends on masses and its speed.
And because masses (of stars and planets) are different so every local
region has its own gravity-space and gravity-time.  For example: Earth
has its own gravity-space and gravity-time,  and Venus or Mars has
another gravity-space and gravity-time. But for humans on the Earth
their Earth's gravity-space and Earth's gravity-time seems absolute.

==========================================

  Senior writer Natalie Wolchover described this situation in another way :
Quantum Gravity’s Time Problem
December 1, 2016

The effort to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity means reconciling totally
different notions of time. In quantum mechanics, time is universal and absolute;
its steady ticks dictate the evolving entanglements between particles.
But in general relativity (Albert Einstein's theory of gravity), time is relative and dynamical,
a dimension that's inextricably interwoven with directions X, Y and Z into a four-dimensional
"space-time" fabric."

https://www.quantamagazine.org/20161201 ... e-problem/

===============================================

Why did scientists call Einstein's /Minkowski  absolute  a four-dimensional
spacetime  as a " fabric " ?

And '' If space-time is a fabric, so to speak, then what are its threads? ''
            Zeeya Merali
Theoretical physics: The origins of space and time

Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Zeeya Merali
28 August 2013
https://www.nature.com/news/theoretical ... me-1.13613

I want to correct Zeeya Merali.
It needs to write:
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of Gravity-space and Gravity-time, but where these entities come from.

In such description  the situation is more clear.

============================

[hyksos]

any researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Zeeya Merali
28 August 2013
https://www.nature.com/news/theoretical ... me-1.13613

I want to correct Zeeya Merali.
It needs to write:
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of Gravity-space and Gravity-time, but where these entities come from.

I looked over the article. I want to point the reader's eyes to the diagram that describes "Holography". It reads :

A three-dimensional (3D) universe contains black holes and strings governed solely by gravity, whereas its 2D boundary contains ordinary particles governed solely by quantum-field theory. Anything happening in the 3D interior can be described as a process on the 2D boundary, and vice versa.

This is probably the most concise description of the `Holographic Principle` I have ever read.

[socrat44]

any researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of space and time, but where these entities come from.
Zeeya Merali
28 August 2013
https://www.nature.com/news/theoretical ... me-1.13613

I want to correct Zeeya Merali.
It needs to write:
Many researchers believe that physics will not be complete until it can explain not just
the behaviour of Gravity-space and Gravity-time, but where these entities come from.

I looked over the article. I want to point the reader's eyes to the diagram
that describes "Holography". It reads :

A three-dimensional (3D) universe contains black holes and strings governed
solely by gravity, whereas its 2D boundary contains ordinary particles governed
solely by quantum-field theory.
Anything happening in the 3D interior can be described as a process
on the 2D boundary, and vice versa.

This is probably the most concise description of the `Holographic Principle` I have ever read.

A three-dimensional (3D) universe has gravity abilities.
A two -dimensional (2D) universe has quantum abilities.
There isn't theory that can combine these two theories together;
there isn't quantum-gravity theory.
================================

[socrat44]

The Nature of Vacuum
Published by Mayukh on July 24, 2018
. . . it turns out that “nothing’ is one of the most interesting something !!
. . . it turns out that empty space is far from nothing.
. . . what would a perfect empty space look like?
. . .virtual particles play a crucial role in our analysis
of the nature of the vacuum.
. . quantum conservation laws must be obeyed
so most virtual particles are created in particle-antiparticle pairs

But how do we verify the existence of these elusive particles?
The 1st hint of the existence of virtual particles came in
the year of 1947 when Wills Lamb . . . .
In 1948 the Dutch physicist Hendric Casimir came up with
a brilliant scheme to detect these virtual particles and vacuum energy.
The observation is that accelerating expansion of the universe.
It is hypothesized that dark energy itself maybe vacuum energy.

A simulation of empty space was made by crunching up
calculation from the Quantum Chromo Dynamics,
the theory of fundamental particle called quarks,
which are the building blocks of protons, neutrons
and how they interact with each other.

QFT with its dependence on virtual particles and
vacuum fluctuations is one of the most successful theories
and yet its prediction on the strength of vacuum energy
seems to be so wildly off.

/ Published by Mayukh on July 24, 2018 /
http://www.cosmicescapes.com/the-nature-of-vacuum/
===

[socrat44]

Universe Temperature = 0°KELVIN (-273°C / -459°F)
Should 0°Kelvin Temperature be Considered
a Universal Force To do Work?
http://zerokelvintheory.com/
===
4. This inefficient assumption, now proposes a modern
explanation to better understand the forces of nature.
Perhaps the negative force of Kelvin temperature has
not been fully explored.
This creates new theoretical ideas to explain: why extreme
cold temperatures emit negative force, which create
unexplained phenomena through density effects.
It also allows us to conclude, Kelvin temperature still
remains partly incomplete: for reasons that we assume,
most of the Universe to be dark and empty space.
http://zerokelvintheory.com/
====

[bangstrom]

Universe Temperature = 0°KELVIN (-273°C / -459°F)
Should 0°Kelvin Temperature be Considered
a Universal Force To do Work?
http://zerokelvintheory.com/

Atoms at 0-K are not totally devoid of kinetic energy since they still maintain their internal motions and structure and this extra bit of energy is known as zero point energy (ZPE) or Zitterbewegung. Mark Jagg’s article ”ZeroKelvinTheory.com” appears to be circling the topic without landing on any of the usual conclusions about this exotic energy as a non-radiating and, as of yet, a non-usable form of energy separate from the thermal energy measured on the K scale.

Jagg’s article makes a number of dubious statements with no more support than to claim they are “scientific opinion” when they are contrary to any opinion about thermodynamics that I am familiar with. Jagg begins with the sentence, “Since 1848, scientific community has identified the cold state of Universal temperature as 0°Kelvin. This is the coldest possible temperature that exists in the Universe and occupies the vast Universal expanse.”

The coldest possible naturally occurring temperature in the universe is now thought to be 2.73 K and the earliest estimation for a temperature of space was made by Guillaume in 1896. His estimate was for a temperature of space was between 6 and7 degrees Kelvin. Space itself has no temperature so the “temperature of space” is the theoretical temperature of a test particle in space as far as possible from any external source of energy.

Guillaume’s temperature of space is higher than more recent estimates because it is for the temperature of intergalactic space. Extragalactic space is naturally colder but extragalactic space was unknown in Guillaume’s time.

Jagg fails to make the case for me that Kelvin is anything more than a temperature scale.

[socrat44]

@bangstrom
There are two views on  0°Kelvin temperature.
a) Classic thermodynamics.
The temperature is result of interaction between particles,
but when state is T=0K:  there are no movements,
there are no vibrations -  thermal death
b) Quantum theory.
When state is T=0K: quantum movements and vibrations
appears  and they don't allow the universe to die.
=============

[socrat44]

Universe Temperature = 0°KELVIN (-273°C / -459°F)
Should 0°Kelvin Temperature be Considered
a Universal Force To do Work?
http://zerokelvintheory.com/

Jagg fails to make the case for me that Kelvin is anything more than a temperature scale.

Mark Jagg’s article ”ZeroKelvinTheory.com” has idea
that 0°KELVIN (-273°C ) state can be source for
thermal and ''electro-energy'' phenomena . . .
and ''Potential ability can become Kinetic ''
/ potential ability of universe with 0°Kelvin temperature /
===

[bangstrom]

b) Quantum theory.
When state is T=0K: quantum movements and vibrations
appears and they don't allow the universe to die.

Mark Jagg’s article ”ZeroKelvinTheory.com” has idea
that 0°KELVIN (-273°C ) state can be source for
thermal and ''electro-energy'' phenomena . . .
and ''Potential ability can become Kinetic ''
/ potential ability of universe with 0°Kelvin temperature /
===

This is the Zero Point Energy theory that has been studied for decades so why does Jagg rename the theory and introduce his own explanations that don’t make sense in light of previous studies? The ZPE and the Kelvin temperature scale are two different things.