Diagram of the multiverse with two localization angles ( Θ and φ) which may be used to pinpoint parallel universes within it.
It seems our indefatigable fundie creationist is now at it again, trying to link the "Big Bang" to Genesis 1:1 by asserting (like the Pope did to Stephen Hawking, as reported in Hawking's book, 'A Brief History of Time') that it is "the moment of creation". Hardly!
Instead, with the given data we have, a more powerful assertion can be made that the big bang is actually only one of gazillions of initiated cosmi all of which are integrated into one Multiverse (see image). Moreoever, all such cosmi have originated or been incepted spontaneously - via quantum fluctuations.
The fundie's claim that:
"Rather than disproving creation, the big bang theory reinforces the idea that the universe began at a specific point in time"
Therefore amounts to total doggerel and codswallop! (Another interesting aspect is that barely two years ago this same fundie-creationist was demonizing the Big Bang as contradicting creation by deity! Well, he can't have it both ways!) . Anyway, let's first examine the Multiverse theory to show why and how it works as well as fits the observations.
Regarding the basis for inception of so many cosmi, the key point is cosmic inflation occurring in each with the inflation interval conducive to parallel universe onset. Hence, soon after each respective expansion start (technically referred to as a "big bang" - though this is something of a misnomer because it isn't like any explosion.) Regarding inflation, most current standard theories propose inflation starting at about 10
-35 s and doubling over a period of anywhere from 10
-43 to 10
-35 s after the initial inception. Estimates are that at least 85 such 'doublings' would be required to arrive at the phase where entropy rather than field resident energy dominates.
The initial size (radius) of our universe would have been likely less than a proton's - maybe 1 fermi (fm) or 10
-15 m, by the time the doubling process began. By the time it ended (after 90 'doublings') it would have been around 1.25 x 10
12 m. This is roughly eight times the distance of Earth from the Sun. In effect, the role of inflation is to give cosmic expansion a huge head start or boost, without which our universe would be much smaller. Other parallel universes emerging around the same time might have been larger or smaller depending upon their specific values for their fundamental physical constants (e.g. alpha, the "fine structure constant", h - the Planck constant, G, and eta the permittivity of free space).
In the graphic, I show an "idealized multiverse" replete with parallel universes, each occupying longitudinal geodesics specified under a coordinate φ, and separated by uniform angular measure Θ from adjacent universes. The whole represents a 5-dimensional manifold in a toroidal topology. The topological space of the hypertoroid cosmos can therefore be represented by the global state space, a product of absolute hypertorus coordinate time (Θ) and 'all-space'(φ):GL = Θ X φ.
The concept immediately shows that the claim of the whole "running down" owing to the 2nd law of thermodynamics (the fundie cites god-monger Robert Jastrow - a pseudo-astronomer, comparing it to the running down of a "clock") is poppycock. The reason is clear, because each parallel cosmos is only one part of the whole not the whole itself. Hence, if we liken the whole to an integrated thermodynamic system, the loss of energy in one (insulated) region - say via open systems within it - doesn't mean the entire configuration runs down. In any case we also need to note here that the 2nd law doesn't obtain in a CLOSED system, i.e. the entropy remains constant in such systems. (Bear in mind each cosmos in the Multiverse is a closed system unto itself). As noted by Kittel (
'Thermal Physics' , John Wiley & Sons, p. 65):
The entropy is constant in a closed system, that is, in a system of constant energy and constant number of particles. The Sun, for example, is not a closed system: it loses energy by radiation and is cooling down. It is not clear, according to geophysicists, whether the total entropy of the Earth is increasing or decreasing at this moment
So this also applies to the ensemble of parallel cosmi in the Multiverse. What about the evidence for the Multiverse and specifically parallel cosmi? In his book The Fabric of Reality (pp. 38-47), David Deutsch adopts the setup (Fig. 2-4) of a monochromatic light beam that passes through successive screens with single holes. The image presented on the screen is a central bright spot with darker penumbra around it. With a two slit pattern for the screens (p. 41) the experiment becomes more interesting in that successive barriers to generate the patterns engenders what Deutsch calls "shadow photons".
He acknowledges (p. 45) that "tangible" (i.e. measurable) photons are grounded in our tangible, current universe, but also that shadow photons can be thought of as collectively coming from a parallel universe. He then clarifies this in mind-blowing fashion (p. 45):
"For it turns out that the shadow particles are partititoned among themselves in exactly the same way as the universe of tangible particles is partitioned from them. In other words, they do not form a single, homogeneous parallel universe vastly larger than the tangible one, but rather a huge number of parallel universes, each similar in composition to the tangible one, and each obeying the same laws of physics,"
This is mind-blowing indeed, but ultimately based on well known physics.
Now, what about any and all of the assorted parallel cosmi starting from nothing? This can also be shown but will require more patience because of the mathematical underpinning (which I seriously doubt the fundie-creationist possesses, though he's very good at putting up blogs which quote word for word from some creationist "scientist" or other- but not from himself, plausibly because he will be exposed as I did in my earlier blog)
The basic concept in all "big bangs" is they are results of spontaneous quantum fluctuations from a quantum vacuum. Thus the quantum vacuum provides an essentially infinite negative energy source (called the Dirace Ether) by which energy can be sustained and used to incept any and all big bangs. (
See, for example, Luciano Boi: Chapter 2, 'The Role of Vacuum in Modern Physics' in 'The Quantum Fluctuation', Johns Hopkins University Press, 2011)
Consider the vacuum state for spontaneous inception of the cosmos, and the conditions that bear on it.
First, the entropy of the universe is now defined in terms of a "holographic principle" that reckons in the Planck length and quantum fluctuations. It is defined (see e.g. Lawrence B. Crowell, Quantum Fluctations in Spacetime', p. 125):
k_B[KL_p
2 / 3)
-1 + (ln 2)/2]
Given this, and the condition of zero net mass energy, the spontaneous and acausal inception of the cosmos is actually the simplest formulation for its origin. Even the smallest fluctuation in the vacuum whereby
delta E ~ h/ delta t
leads to an instantaneous local deviation in mass-energy and the explosive origin of a cosmic expansion predicated on negative pressure. (See previous blog entry). As noted by Crowell (op. cit., p. 134):
"A net zero cosmology is the most economical one that can emerge from the vacuum state".
Even more important (ibid.):
"Since K is a measure of the number of Q-bits ....a cosmology with N x Q-bits will exhibit Poisson statistics."
As anyone who has used Poisson statistics knows, these are based on a genuine phenomenal randomness.
Returning to the trace, let the event horizon of the vacuum bubble be defined by
rS(g) = 2 ct
Where r = L_p, the Planck length (L_p = {Gh/2 π c
3 }
1/2 ) and S(g) is the action, then we will have the cosmological constant applicable to de Sitter space: K =
(n – 1)(n – 2)/ [2 q
2 ]
where q is a scale factor, and n denoted the dimension (4) of the volume under consideration. Now for S(g) ~ t
1/2 , R (the scalar curvature of de Sitter space) = 0, so S(g) = 0
However, the above happens because the Einstein tensor (T_ik) has trace = 0 in the early universe. The ‘trace’ is the sum of the diagonal elements of a tensor, e.g.
Tr(M) = 0
where M =
[1 0 0 0]
[0 -1 0 0]
[0 0 1 0 ]
[0 0 0 -1 ]
Now, if the "preparation device outcome" is none other than the net zero mass vacuum state on quantum fluctuation, such that dx ~ dL/ L (where L is the length scale of the volume, viz. dL >= (L*L_p
2)
1/2 , then Tr(M) will apply to good approximation, and the causality assumption is finito. The question is WHY? A clue is provided by Seth Lloyd in his monograph 'Programming the Universe'(p. 118):
"What's going on is that quantum mechanics, unlike classical mechanics, can create information out of nothing"
Thus, what has transpired, is that the holographic fluctuation has not only incepted an inital mass-energy dE ~ H/ dt -> E/c
2 but also information! The information inception occurred acausally precisely because the Hilbert space states are different for a vacuum fluctuation than for ordinary QM.
To fix ideas, while the expectation value [E(Q,A)] of an observable represented by a bounded operator A, on separable Hilbert space H is given by:
[E(Q,A)] = tr (Q, A) where Q is a statistical operator, this presumes the ensemble representation is deterministic or 'causal' if for all g in G:
f_A(g) in S(A)
where S(A) is the spectrum of A with respect to the algebra L(H), but the condition does not apply in the case of quantum fluctuations on L_p.
For this reason other avenues can pursued - for example, using Riemann's Zeta function Z(E) in terms of divergent, infinite Dirichlet series that can be transformed into finite sums such as:
Z'(1/2 + iE) ~ 2 exp {- i π N(E)}
å m=1 to (E/2 π)
1/2 m
-1/2 cos(E lnm - π N(e))
in conjunction with Gutzwiller's trace equation, and a more germane representation for the trace:
Tr G(E) ~ Tr G_o(E) ~ d/ dE {ln Z (E)
Taking into account the Poisson statistical nature attached to the fluctuations, whereby:
delta N = [N]
1/2 and delta V ~ G[V]
1/2
where delta N is the fluctuation of Q-bits arising, and delta V the corresponding fluctuation in volume, then we are led to the conclusion of Cromwell (ibid.).
"The recent discovery that the universe is accelerating outward is the latest of important results, which indicates the universe could well be a net zero (mass-energy). This then indicates that the observed universe is the result of a fluctuation in the quantum gravity vacuum"
In other words, the observed accelerating expansion negates the entropic "wind-down" and since it is itself a negative energy phenomenon, it points to a negative vacuum energy fluctuation for cosmic inception.. Thus dark energy is responsible for the acceleration and is given by the equation of state:
w = (Pressure/ energy density) = -1 so energy density(r) = - p which is consistent with Einstein's general theory of relativity. In this case, the existence of a negative pressure is consistent with general relativity's allowance for a "repulsive gravity".
The beauty of this development is that it rests on its own merits, and doesn't require absolute proof of a Multiverse. In other words, whether or not we inhabit a multiverse or universe, the big bang is evidence for a spontaneous inception from a quantum vacuum, NOT "creation". The fundie can try to link Genesis to the Big Bang all he wants, but in the end he's on a fool's errand!
