Higgs Fields and BBT Origins

[CraigS]

'A Higgs field that has gotten caught on a plateau not only suffuses space and energy but, contributes to negative pressure.

As far as energy and pressure are concerned, a Higgs field that's caught on a plateau has the same properties as a cosmological constant. A supercooled Higgs field impacts on the expansion of space - like a cosmological constant. It exerts a repulsive force that drives space to expand.

Although a supercooled Higgs field shares certain features with a Cosmological constant, they are not identical. A super-cooled Higgs field need not be a constant, however.

The time varying value of the Higgs field is what gave rise to the bang in (BBT), at about 10e-35 seconds'.

Is the above correct ?

Cheers

[CraigS]

So, if a Higgs field stays on a high energy plateau, in the high energy, negative pressure state, for an instant, the outwards pressure it exerts whilst in this state, is enormous. And this could be triggered by quantum fluctuations, right ?

The negative pressure and energy contributed by the Higgs field in this state is 10e100 times larger than Einstein's Cosmological constant, (which he chose arbitrarily, so that the outward repulsive force would precisely balance the inward attractive force arising from the ordinary matter and radiation in the cosmos). And what results is thus, a huge Bang.

There's also something about entropy in a super-cooled state predicting all this, as well ?

But before there was a Higgs field, there was a "Higgs ocean" ? (A 'non zero Higgs field vacuum expectation value').

Cheers

[CraigS]

Continuation of discussions from the "Hawking" thread follows:

Steven's comment was:

In these examples the symmetry hasn't been broken. A mathematical operation such as translation, rotation etc results in the Lagrangian (which describes the energy of the system) to remain the same (it is invariant).

In QFT there is Gauge Theory. Gauge theory predicts the existence of zero mass gauge bosons such as photons. Gauge bosons are required in order for the Lagrangian to remain invariant, but cannot predict bosons with mass such as the W, Z and the yet to be discovered Higgs boson.

By breaking the symmetry gives mass to the bosons. The theoretical properties of the W and Z bosons as predicted by symmetry breaking were confirmed after their discovery.

With regards to the BB a gauge field may have existed prior to the BB, but as to what symmetry may have been broken to trigger the BB no one knows.

M (brane) theory also predicts a pre BB.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

So, with Quantum Field Theory (symmetry breaking), which has successfully predicted the W and Z bosons (discovered at CERN), there exists a plausible, scientific possibility that a gauge field may have existed and symmetry of something may have been broken ?

Other theories such as M-Theory point in a similar direction, with a different dialogue ?

Would you say this is the basis of where Hawking is coming from ?

Cheers
PS: Apologies if this message seems a little disjointed .. I was interrupted by the locking of the "Hawking" thread .. mid-sentence. Cheers.

[renormalised (Carl)]

They used to think that the inflaton (the field/particle system for inflation) was originally the Higgs Field, but as it turns out, the Higgs Field it isn't. They then thought it may have something to do with GUT's, but the original theories for GUT's don't stack up so now they think it maybe something to do with SUSY and M Theory. What we do know is that when the symmetry was broken, the high energy, negative pressure false vacuum immediately collapsed into the low energy, positive pressure true vacuum via the nucleation of bubbles of true vacuum. These were essentially what turned out to be our universe.

[CraigS]

So the concept of what we're talking about now, 'symmetry breaking' comes from Quantum Field Theory, which has solid, experimental foundations.
And the Higgs field or ('whatever' field), suddenly changed state, (possibly when it cooled to a certain temperature), like water freezing into ice.

Except, as it gradually expanded and thus, cooled, to this temperature, something symmetrical broke and released huge amounts of energy which resulted in the Big Bang (?).

So, in this scenario something can come from nothing .. er except its not a 'nothing' ... its a 'field looking' thing ?

And that, perhaps is what Hawking is on about ?

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

A breaking of symmetry is a change of state, just as you have summised. Like water turning to ice, or a marble falling from a table and landing on the ground. Even saying something from nothing....there is something, "nothing". Nothing is a concept and as such has existence. If there was truly "nothing", even the concept would have no meaning because there would be "nothing" there to define it. And in quantum physics, there cannot be a "nothing", because of the uncertainty principle. So, when someone asks "what was here before the BB??", your best answer is nothing (not "nothing")

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

So, when someone asks "what was here before the BB??", your best answer is nothing (not "nothing")

As in an active demonstration of "nothing" ?

[renormalised (Carl)]

Think of the BB as like this....get a 20c coin and place it on the table. Spin the coin. That was the state of existence before the BB...a perfectly symmetrical quantum state. Now let the coin slow down and drop on whatever side it chooses. That is symmetry breaking...when the coin hits the table, that is the BB and inflation. The sound you hear is the energy of inflation being transferred into the new state at the end of inflation....the BB. The side facing up is all the laws of physics/nature that are present in that Universe.

[CraigS]

Ok so now the only problem with all this is ...
that voids may really be voids ..
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...gy-puzzle.html

So there goes the initial conditions ... pfffftt !!??

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

As in an active demonstration of "nothing" ?

You can't even say that about it, because there is "nothing" there to demonstrate anything to begin with. Even nothing

There is no existence, or even a definition of such.

The only real way they can understand it is if they can "feel" what you're saying. They have to understand the definition as in the complete absence of even absence. The moment there is even a scintilla of thought/existence, something is there. And from that, you can build a reality.

This is where the science of physics is starting to encroach on the metaphysical, and to be honest, I think that's where a science like physics will eventually head. It will include both the simple and mundane, and the extraordinary.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by CraigS

Ok so now the only problem with all this is ...
that voids may really be voids ..
http://www.newscientist.com/article/...gy-puzzle.html

So there goes the initial conditions ... pfffftt !!??

I've already posted a thread on this

It's not all in the bag yet....not by a long shot

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by CraigS

So the concept of what we're talking about now, 'symmetry breaking' comes from Quantum Field Theory, which has solid, experimental foundations.
And the Higgs field or ('whatever' field), suddenly changed state, (possibly when it cooled to a certain temperature), like water freezing into ice.

Except, as it gradually expanded and thus, cooled, to this temperature, something symmetrical broke and released huge amounts of energy which resulted in the Big Bang (?).

So, in this scenario something can come from nothing .. er except its not a 'nothing' ... its a 'field looking' thing ?

And that, perhaps is what Hawking is on about ?

Cheers

Here is an example of symmetry breaking. Think of a marble sitting on top of an inverted bowl. Since it is on top of the bowl it has a higher potential energy than a marble sitting at the base.
The marble sitting on the bowl is in an unstable dynamical system. If you knock the bowl or perturb it the marble will roll. Since the marble can roll in any direction symmetry exists.
Once the bowl is perturbed the marble rolls in a certain direction. This destroys the symmetry. The marble rolls down the bowl from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state. Energy is released in the process. Note that the energy has not been created from nothing.

Hawking is in the difficult postion of trying to explain a concept that is comprehensible to the general public without misconveying the message.
His peers have criticized him on this point in the past.

I think you need to examine the "scientific version" of what Hawking is trying to state.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Hawking is in the difficult postion of trying to explain a concept that is comprehensible to the general public without misconveying the message.
His peers have criticized him on this point in the past.

I think you need to examine the "scientific version" of what Hawking is trying to state.

Regards

Steven

Yep. Understand. No problems about looking at the "scientific version".

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Originally Posted by sjastro

Here is an example of symmetry breaking. Think of a marble sitting on top of an inverted bowl. Since it is on top of the bowl it has a higher potential energy than a marble sitting at the base.
The marble sitting on the bowl is in an unstable dynamical system. If you knock the bowl or perturb it the marble will roll. Since the marble can roll in any direction symmetry exists.
Once the bowl is perturbed the marble rolls in a certain direction. This destroys the symmetry. The marble rolls down the bowl from a higher potential energy state to a lower potential energy state. Energy is released in the process. Note that the energy has not been created from nothing.

Hawking is in the difficult postion of trying to explain a concept that is comprehensible to the general public without misconveying the message.
His peers have criticized him on this point in the past.

I think you need to examine the "scientific version" of what Hawking is trying to state.

Regards

Steven

I agree....you're much better of looking at the theory as it stands. Check out the way they try to diagrammatically/descriptively represent it and apply the maths to what they have.

The problem with Hawking trying to convey the message is it's hard enough for physicists to understand it, let alone the general public. Even when you try to represent it with simple examples and diagrams, many still can't get the concept.

[CraigS]

Thanks guys.

Appreciate your help in bringing this one to a logical conclusion .. at least for me .. (locked threads & all) !

Cheers

[renormalised (Carl)]

Anyway, those "voids" aren't empty. Even if there's only 1 atom per cubic light year, think of how many cubic light years there are in a void a billion light years across

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by renormalised

Anyway, those "voids" aren't empty. Even if there's only 1 atom per cubic light year, think of how many cubic light years there are in a void a billion light years across

Yep. I re-read the article again, (for about the 5th time), and the difference between "nothing" and a void is that, unlike today's voids, when there was "nothing", there really was












PS: Hard to do that in this medium !!