An Alternative Hypothesis for the Origin of the Universe – Abstract by Greg Matthews

30 10 2010

This paper provides a unique hypothesis respecting the origin of the Universe not found yet in scientific literature on the subject.  The hypothesis from Princeton [1] for the origin of the Universe arising out of collision between two parallel Universes has been considered but does not meet all the criteria for a successful theory.  The theory would be acceptable if :  (a) it were backed-up by a soundly based theory of quantum gravity; and (b) if it were based on a quantized M-theory for the branes (i.e., membrane structure) on which this theory is predicated.  To date, neither of these models have been developed to the point of general consensus within the scientific community.  And, even so, it would not answer the question as to where the preceding Universe got its energy and branes.

The hypothesis of this paper is emerging from work being done at the Perimeter Institute at Waterloo Ontario, and proposes that the likely source of energy for the initial conditions of the Big Bang may have arisen from a sharp expanding drop, or gradient, in the vacuum energy of a primordial cosmos that was previously at an equilibrium energy with only the virtual particles of the primordial cosmos flickering into and out of existence with fluctuations in the vacuum energy.  A sharp, expanding drop in the vacuum energy would promote a sub-population of what were virtual particles (i.e., vacua) into Dirac particles we observe in this Universe.  This model would definitely be consistent with the Big Bang model, including the Schwarzchild metric of Einstein’s General Relativity.

The difficult issue that needs to be resolved, that is not covered to date by any of the theories of the inception of the observed Universe is, “Why do the physical constants (i.e., G, h, c, e, etc.) have the observed values?”  It is apparent from established theories of physics that the observed Universe  could not exist as we see it if the physical constants used in all physics equations had values even marginally different from the observed values.  Roger Penrose (Oxford Physics) wrote extensively on this subject in his opus, The Emperor’s New Mind [2].  There could simply be millions of possible sub-Universes depending on the values of the physical constants.  It would at first appear as though God precisely chose from a list of phase spaces the one or two phase-spaces that would yield a viable Universe with sentient biotic life-forms.

The alternative view, rather than an intelligently chosen phase-space, would be to argue that many, many sub-Universes may have arisen, or may yet arise, as described above from the hypothetical N-dimensional primordial Universe, each with its own set of physical constants.  Some sub-Universes would not be viable, (i.e., they would re-collapse under the huge forces of gravity, or be flung outwardly so far without being able to produce suns due to very weak gravity), or would produce atomic nuclei made of two protons with no neutrons, or would simply not produce viable, sentient life-forms to observe the Universe because the physical constants would not give rise to the Periodic Table as we know it.

Assuming an N-dimensional Superspace of the primordial Universe, each sub-Universe would be a D-dimensional submanifold embedded in N-dimensional Superspace.  An observer in one sub-Universe would not be able to observe an observer in another sub-Universe not only because of the difference in the physical constants, such as the speed of light, but also because the space-time references between observer and observables also depend on the values of the physical constants.  Particles can only interact with other particles that share the same values for the physical constants.  Furthermore, the Schwarzchild metric of Einstein’s Relativity establishes that the space-time metric is dependent on the values of the physical constants.  If the existence of Universes with other physical constants were postulated, it would be difficult to detect them even if their metrics intersected with ours in an N-dimensional Superspace.

Finally, the question as to why a drop in vacuum energy would occur may be answered simply by referring to the principle of entropy.  That is, the vacuum energy drop of the primordial Universe may have arisen simply due to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which I believe should and needs to be restated as the natural tendency of particles (in this case, vacua too) to achieve the lowest energy state.

With respect to the Anthropic Principle espoused by Hawking, maybe it should similarly be revised to state, “The Universe we observe is the way it is because it is one of only a few Universes out of millions of Universes, that can sustain a viable biotic, sentient life-form like us to observe it.”

As a further note within the frame of reference of the primordial Universe described as a vacuum at approximate equilibrium with vacua (i.e., virtual particles) flickering into and out of existence with fluctuations of the vacuum arising from quantum effects, the vacuum energy would be approximately zero.  Any sustained drop in the value of the vacuum energy of the primordial Universe would be recorded as raising a sub-population of vacua to energy levels above the new value of the vacuum energy of the resultant sub-Universe, which, within the frame of reference of the sub-Universe, would be approximately zero in relatively flat regions of the vacuum energy gradient, but as negative from the frame of reference of the preceding primordial Universe.  The sub-population of vacua promoted to energy levels above the vacuum energy of the sub-Universe would be observed as Dirac particles, as in our sub-Universe.  Entropy would forbid any tendency of the vacuum energy of the resultant sub-Universe from increasing, which would imply that those vacua promoted in energy as Dirac particles would not flicker out of existence again as part of the vacuum.

This view of the Big Bang lends itself to the emerging view that we are a Universe within a Multiverse.  This would be supported by any quantization of the metric simply because the quantized metric would introduce, by its very nature, partitions in space-time dimensions.

Gradients in the vacuum energy of our Universe may also explain the observation of dark energy and matter as follows:  There may be non-uniformly distributed gradients in the vacuum energy of our observable Universe that would give rise to gravitational affects that would explain the size and structure of galaxies.  There may be a sizeable gradient in the vacuum energy itself within a galaxy that would give rise to gravitational effects that could not be attributed to the amount of matter and energy present within the galaxy.  Such an effect would negate the need to model forms of matter and energy other than those currently observed.  In other words, we can explain the structure and size of galaxies as owing to non-uniformly distributed gradients of vacuum energy within a Universe without the need to provide a model for a new form of dark matter and dark energy that would, by its very nature, be difficult to detect.

A simple test is proposed that would confirm gradients in the vacuum energy as an explanation for the structure and size of  observed galaxies.  Assuming a substantive gradient in the vacuum energy of a galaxy, it would be expected that the values of mass of hydrogen and other nuclei making up the stars of the galaxy would be greater towards the center of a galaxy than in its outer areas.  The expectation would be that there would be a shift in the spectral line spacings of the light emanating from the stars from the center regions of the galaxy compared with those of stars from the outer regions of the galaxies that would be evident in any spectroscopic analysis of the light emanating from the galaxies, taking into consideration any expected red-shift.  We could theoretically obtain from the spectroscopic measurements an exact determination of the extent of vacuum energy gradient addition to stellar nucleonic masses and determine if such a gradient in the vacuum energy were sufficient to explain the gravitational effects needed to explain galaxy structure and size.  The measurements would also need to account for any lensing effects on the spacings of the spectral lines due to the expected gradients in vacuum energy as a function of distance from the galactic center.

In addition, an explanation of the very early period of the genesis of the Multiverse requires an inflationary period shortly after the moment of inception of the Multiverse.  The theory expostulated here that the Universe began with a quickly radiating drop in the energy gradient of the vacuum would explain the Inflationary Big Bang needed for consistency with astrophysics observations that  current formulations of the Einstein’s metric do not adequately model.  Furthermore, the hypothesis of a quickly radiating drop in the energy gradient of the vacuum also allows for non-homogeneous distribution of energy gradients in the vacuum, depending entirely on the initial conditions of the primordial Universe, that would be consistent with astrophysics observations of even galactic structure themselves.l

References:

1.   N. Turok, P. Steinhardt, Is Gravity from a Parallel Universe?,  The Daily Galaxy, September 18, 2010.

2.  R. Penrose, The Emperor’s New Mind, Penguin Books, 1989.

Advertisements

Actions

Information

2 responses

13 09 2012
MELANY GIRON

NO YO CREO HIPOTESIS CON PREGUNTAS Y RESPUESTAS NO SE ENTIENDE NADA POR FAVOR HACER LAS COSAS BIEN PARA QUE NOSOTROS PODAMOS HACER BIEN NUESTROS TRABAJOS DE INVESTIGACION
ATTT:MELANY GIRON

5 03 2013
umbilical cord banks

Admiring the time and effort you put into your site and detailed information you provide.
It’s good to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same outdated rehashed
material. Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m including
your RSS feeds to my Google account.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: