Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time.

[spino...@aol.com]

Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time. 

 

 

The problem of explaining the Arrow of Time Naturally is often posed as one of “unsolved “problems in Physics. Sean Carroll dedicated an entire book to this question. (“From Eternity to Here” I strongly recommend this book for its clear and substantive explanation of the underlying physics.)  

 

However, the purpose of this post is to make the claim that the cosmological Arrow of time, rather than being a great mystery in physics is actually an inevitable result of the quantum tunneling of Universes into existence. The arrow of time rather than being a statistical accident is the result of the physics of Third Quantization. In other words the low entropy boundary at the origin of the Universe is an inevitable feature of the tunneling process. This point has been made in an earlier post but here I make it the central topic because of its importance.

 

In this post I won’t relate in any detail Vic’s origin paper which is available in the Physics eprint website. Rather for clarity I will only relate what is needed to support my argument. Of course, this argument rests on the validity of the entire paper, but the validity of Vic’s Origin paper will be taken as a given here.   See Attached 

Bob Zannelli 

[Brent Meeker]

I was nodding in agreement until I came to this: "However, based on the Third Quantization scenario this too is no mystery. As related by numerous descriptions of third quantization, at origin there exist a null boundary. Inflation launches in both directions of time. Therefore, Unitarity is preserved globally, but the expansion on either side of the null boundary is non unitary and information is not conserved."

This looks like a completely ad hoc cheat to me.  Unitarity conserves information in this universe alone, or else it means nothing.  If you can "conserve" quantities by postulating a balancing value in another universe  you've just given up the concept of conservation.  Vic was careful to tie conservation to symmetry by his, somewhat loose, application of Noether's theorem.  In this universe unitarity holds because the equations of evolution are time translation invariant.  You don't need another universe.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41765/is-there-a-symmetry-associated-to-the-conservation-of-information

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/1383979894.1777353.1565186600182%40mail.yahoo.com.

[spino...@aol.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Atoms and the Void <atv...@googlegroups.com>
To: atvoid <atv...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time.

I was nodding in agreement until I came to this: "However, based on the Third Quantization scenario this too is no mystery. As related by numerous descriptions of third quantization, at origin there exist a null boundary. Inflation launches in both directions of time. Therefore, Unitarity is preserved globally, but the expansion on either side of the null boundary is non unitary and information is not conserved." 

This looks like a completely ad hoc cheat to me.  Unitarity conserves information in this universe alone, or else it means nothing.  If you can "conserve" quantities by postulating a balancing value in another universe  you've just given up the concept of conservation.  Vic was careful to tie conservation to symmetry by his, somewhat loose, application of Noether's theorem.  In this universe unitarity holds because the equations of evolution are time translation invariant.  You don't need another universe.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41765/is-there-a-symmetry-associated-to-the-conservation-of-information

Brent

The non conservation of information is implicit in Vic's explanation for the Arrow of time as related in his book "Has Science  Found God" Appendix C. At any moment in time , the universe is at max entropy, that is ,  contains maximum number of microstates for the macro state we call universe. It's the expansion of the universe that allows an AOT at all. He expanded on this in Fallacy by incorporating the idea of entropy density, to show how this could work. Vic was in the same camp with Unruh, Wald , Thorne and others on information conservation , though he never got involved in the black hole information question in his books. I talked with Vic about this in Orlando when he came to speak at UCF. This was in the context of an idea on dark energy  I posted on here and was mentioned in several of Vic's books. This idea has now been ruled out by the much better data from Planck. I subsequently posted a new approach on dark energy  but sadly this was after Vic passed away.( Planck has not ruled out Vic's assertion of course)  Vic was severely criticized  by Luke Barnes when he expanded on this along the lines He and I discussed  in Orlando. This was to model this process in terms of entropy density, showing how this process not being scale invariant can work. I subsequently discovered a paper that made the same argument Vic had  made with regard to global entropy , this was also after Vic passed away. Luke Barnes is wrong. 

To your point. The argument is that just like a black Hole singularity destroys information a time reversed singularity ( the big bang?)  creates information. Information conservation will not hold in globally in gravity anymore than energy conservation holds globally in gravity. . Noether's theorem  on time and space translation is invalid  when spacetime is being created ( Big Bang Singularity)  or annihilated ( Black Hole Singularity) However just like we can argue the total energy of the universe is zero if it closed, I would argue that in the Biverse ,  total information is zero. The need for a Biverse has been argued for in many papers all the way back to the 1960's, I won't do that here.  As I have argued unitarity is defined in terms of the time evolution of the wave function. But in gravity , time is arguably emergent. There is a kind of unitary globally ( Biverse)  but simple quantum evolution does not apply to gravity , I would argue, because gravity is a semi classical measurement  process,  that is induced by the collection action of the quantum fields of the vacuum unitary does not hold. However conservation of probability does hold and this is all that really matters. 

 See attached 

Bob Zannelli 

 

On 8/7/2019 7:03 AM, spinozalens via Atoms and the Void wrote:

Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time. 

 

 

The problem of explaining the Arrow of Time Naturally is often posed as one of “unsolved “problems in Physics. Sean Carroll dedicated an entire book to this question. (“From Eternity to Here” I strongly recommend this book for its clear and substantive explanation of the underlying physics.)  

 

However, the purpose of this post is to make the claim that the cosmological Arrow of time, rather than being a great mystery in physics is actually an inevitable result of the quantum tunneling of Universes into existence. The arrow of time rather than being a statistical accident is the result of the physics of Third Quantization. In other words the low entropy boundary at the origin of the Universe is an inevitable feature of the tunneling process. This point has been made in an earlier post but here I make it the central topic because of its importance.

 

In this post I won’t relate in any detail Vic’s origin paper which is available in the Physics eprint website. Rather for clarity I will only relate what is needed to support my argument. Of course, this argument rests on the validity of the entire paper, but the validity of Vic’s Origin paper will be taken as a given here.   See Attached 

Bob Zannelli 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/1383979894.1777353.1565186600182%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/cc39226f-c9a6-ca37-019b-3cbaf2bfe1c6%40verizon.net.

[Lawrence Crowell]

I read Vilenkin's paper. The big problem I see with there being this type of boundary is that inflation started about 10^{-36}sec into the universe. If you were to start inflation earlier you get too many efolds. This is about 10^7 Planck units of time and it is questionable whether there was a classical spacetime then and certainly before. So as one pushes back from there the classical spacetime dissolves into a quantum fog. This boundary is in some ways similar to the Wilzcek theory of boundary quantum fluctuations, maybe edge effects and holography. I then question the plausibility of this sort of classical analysis. I think pretty seriously there is a very different set of physics that takes over at this point.

LC

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/cc39226f-c9a6-ca37-019b-3cbaf2bfe1c6%40verizon.net.

[spino...@aol.com]

Actually in eternal inflation it's not very meaningful to talk about when inflation began. No?

Bob Zannelli  

-----Original Message-----
From: Lawrence Crowell <goldenfield...@gmail.com>
To: atvoid <atv...@googlegroups.com>

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/CAAFA0qpXpmWoUnhCyGEJdGWyXXPzQb1-1R%3Dw7TyeQLtRtuFK2g%40mail.gmail.com.

[Brent Meeker]

On 8/7/2019 5:18 PM, spinozalens via Atoms and the Void wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Atoms and the Void <atv...@googlegroups.com>
To: atvoid <atv...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time.

I was nodding in agreement until I came to this: "However, based on the Third Quantization scenario this too is no mystery. As related by numerous descriptions of third quantization, at origin there exist a null boundary. Inflation launches in both directions of time. Therefore, Unitarity is preserved globally, but the expansion on either side of the null boundary is non unitary and information is not conserved." 

This looks like a completely ad hoc cheat to me.  Unitarity conserves information in this universe alone, or else it means nothing.  If you can "conserve" quantities by postulating a balancing value in another universe  you've just given up the concept of conservation.  Vic was careful to tie conservation to symmetry by his, somewhat loose, application of Noether's theorem.  In this universe unitarity holds because the equations of evolution are time translation invariant.  You don't need another universe.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41765/is-there-a-symmetry-associated-to-the-conservation-of-information

Brent

The non conservation of information is implicit in Vic's explanation for the Arrow of time as related in his book "Has Science  Found God" Appendix C. At any moment in time , the universe is at max entropy, that is ,  contains maximum number of microstates for the macro state we call universe. It's the expansion of the universe that allows an AOT at all. He expanded on this in Fallacy by incorporating the idea of entropy density, to show how this could work. Vic was in the same camp with Unruh, Wald , Thorne and others on information conservation , though he never got involved in the black hole information question in his books. I talked with Vic about this in Orlando when he came to speak at UCF. This was in the context of an idea on dark energy  I posted on here and was mentioned in several of Vic's books. This idea has now been ruled out by the much better data from Planck. I subsequently posted a new approach on dark energy  but sadly this was after Vic passed away.( Planck has not ruled out Vic's assertion of course)  Vic was severely criticized  by Luke Barnes when he expanded on this along the lines He and I discussed  in Orlando. This was to model this process in terms of entropy density, showing how this process not being scale invariant can work. I subsequently discovered a paper that made the same argument Vic had  made with regard to global entropy , this was also after Vic passed away. Luke Barnes is wrong. 

To your point. The argument is that just like a black Hole singularity destroys information

You write that as though it's an accepted result.  It's not.

a time reversed singularity ( the big bang?)  creates information. Information conservation will not hold in globally in gravity anymore than energy conservation holds globally in gravity. .

Mere assertion.  Information, and entropy, are scalars...so they are not analogous to stress-energy.

Noether's theorem  on time and space translation is invalid  when spacetime is being created ( Big Bang Singularity)  or annihilated ( Black Hole Singularity) However just like we can argue the total energy of the universe is zero if it closed, I would argue that in the Biverse ,  total information is zero.

That's all very well.  But information is still conserved within this universe if you stick to conventional QFT.  You often advocate for MWI, which is based on conservation of information in a multiverse...not a biverse.

The need for a Biverse has been argued for in many papers all the way back to the 1960's, I won't do that here.  As I have argued unitarity is defined in terms of the time evolution of the wave function.

Which is in one universe.

But in gravity , time is arguably emergent. There is a kind of unitary globally ( Biverse)  but simple quantum evolution does not apply to gravity , I would argue,

And I would argue it a metaphysically motivated cheat.  That which can explain anything fails to explain at all.

because gravity is a semi classical measurement  process,  that is induced by the collection action of the quantum fields of the vacuum unitary does not hold. However conservation of probability does hold and this is all that really matters.

Are you then going to give up deterministic evolution of the state and allow for inherent randomness?

Brent

 See attached 

Bob Zannelli 

 

On 8/7/2019 7:03 AM, spinozalens via Atoms and the Void wrote:

Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time. 

 

 

The problem of explaining the Arrow of Time Naturally is often posed as one of “unsolved “problems in Physics. Sean Carroll dedicated an entire book to this question. (“From Eternity to Here” I strongly recommend this book for its clear and substantive explanation of the underlying physics.)  

 

However, the purpose of this post is to make the claim that the cosmological Arrow of time, rather than being a great mystery in physics is actually an inevitable result of the quantum tunneling of Universes into existence. The arrow of time rather than being a statistical accident is the result of the physics of Third Quantization. In other words the low entropy boundary at the origin of the Universe is an inevitable feature of the tunneling process. This point has been made in an earlier post but here I make it the central topic because of its importance.

 

In this post I won’t relate in any detail Vic’s origin paper which is available in the Physics eprint website. Rather for clarity I will only relate what is needed to support my argument. Of course, this argument rests on the validity of the entire paper, but the validity of Vic’s Origin paper will be taken as a given here.   See Attached 

Bob Zannelli 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/1383979894.1777353.1565186600182%40mail.yahoo.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/cc39226f-c9a6-ca37-019b-3cbaf2bfe1c6%40verizon.net.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Atoms and the Void" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to atvoid+un...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/1054168989.1998192.1565223536885%40mail.yahoo.com.

[spino...@aol.com]

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Atoms and the Void <atv...@googlegroups.com>
To: atvoid <atv...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 10:31 pm
Subject: Re: Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time.

On 8/7/2019 5:18 PM, spinozalens via Atoms and the Void wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: 'Brent Meeker' via Atoms and the Void <atv...@googlegroups.com>
To: atvoid <atv...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wed, Aug 7, 2019 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Vic’s “A Scenario for a natural Origin of our Universe” and the Arrow of Time.

I was nodding in agreement until I came to this: "However, based on the Third Quantization scenario this too is no mystery. As related by numerous descriptions of third quantization, at origin there exist a null boundary. Inflation launches in both directions of time. Therefore, Unitarity is preserved globally, but the expansion on either side of the null boundary is non unitary and information is not conserved." 

This looks like a completely ad hoc cheat to me.  Unitarity conserves information in this universe alone, or else it means nothing.  If you can "conserve" quantities by postulating a balancing value in another universe  you've just given up the concept of conservation.  Vic was careful to tie conservation to symmetry by his, somewhat loose, application of Noether's theorem.  In this universe unitarity holds because the equations of evolution are time translation invariant.  You don't need another universe.

https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/41765/is-there-a-symmetry-associated-to-the-conservation-of-information

Brent

The non conservation of information is implicit in Vic's explanation for the Arrow of time as related in his book "Has Science  Found God" Appendix C. At any moment in time , the universe is at max entropy, that is ,  contains maximum number of microstates for the macro state we call universe. It's the expansion of the universe that allows an AOT at all. He expanded on this in Fallacy by incorporating the idea of entropy density, to show how this could work. Vic was in the same camp with Unruh, Wald , Thorne and others on information conservation , though he never got involved in the black hole information question in his books. I talked with Vic about this in Orlando when he came to speak at UCF. This was in the context of an idea on dark energy  I posted on here and was mentioned in several of Vic's books. This idea has now been ruled out by the much better data from Planck. I subsequently posted a new approach on dark energy  but sadly this was after Vic passed away.( Planck has not ruled out Vic's assertion of course)  Vic was severely criticized  by Luke Barnes when he expanded on this along the lines He and I discussed  in Orlando. This was to model this process in terms of entropy density, showing how this process not being scale invariant can work. I subsequently discovered a paper that made the same argument Vic had  made with regard to global entropy , this was also after Vic passed away. Luke Barnes is wrong. 

To your point. The argument is that just like a black Hole singularity destroys information

You write that as though it's an accepted result.  It's not.

I didn't mean to do that. I was clear in naming who takes this position but it is a minority view in the physics community 

a time reversed singularity ( the big bang?)  creates information. Information conservation will not hold in globally in gravity anymore than energy conservation holds globally in gravity. .

Mere assertion.  Information, and entropy, are scalars...so they are not analogous to stress-energy.

I don't see the relevance of this comment however, again,  to be clear this a minority viewpoint. OF COURSE I AM NOT AT ALL CERTAIN THIS IS CORRECT  

Noether's theorem  on time and space translation is invalid  when spacetime is being created ( Big Bang Singularity)  or annihilated ( Black Hole Singularity) However just like we can argue the total energy of the universe is zero if it closed, I would argue that in the Biverse ,  total information is zero.

That's all very well.  But information is still conserved within this universe if you stick to conventional QFT.  You often advocate for MWI, which is based on conservation of information in a multiverse...not a biverse.

QFT doesn't incorporate gravity 

The need for a Biverse has been argued for in many papers all the way back to the 1960's, I won't do that here.  As I have argued unitarity is defined in terms of the time evolution of the wave function.

Which is in one universe.

See above

But in gravity , time is arguably emergent. There is a kind of unitary globally ( Biverse)  but simple quantum evolution does not apply to gravity , I would argue,

And I would argue it a metaphysically motivated cheat.  That which can explain anything fails to explain at all.

If this is true, it explains , at least to some degree , the early universe's  boundary condition. No? I think the firewall disaster suggest that arguing that information is encoded in Hawking radiation is a fatally flawed idea.  ( other than temperature, angular momentum and charge)

selection action of the quantum fields of the vacuum unitary does not hold. However conservation of probability does hold and this is all that really matters. 

because gravity is a semi classical measurement  process,  that is induced by the col

Are you then going to give up deterministic evolution of the state and allow for inherent randomness?

I would argue that randomness is due to the impossibility of having  predictability on future self location and at the global scale ( Bird view) the Universe is timeless. There is nothing random about timelessness. 

Bob Zannelli 

https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/1d9fd466-49f2-0caa-85ab-ce7ef98ed95f%40verizon.net

.

[Lawrence Crowell]

Eternal inflation just pushes the boundary back. As Vilenkin found with Guth in the BVG theorem an inflationary system is not past eternal. the inflationary manifold is a de Sitter or dS-like spacetime, which BTW is close to the quantum gravitation limit, that produces pocket regions such as our own observable universe that may in fact pop-off as closed distinct manifolds. So this dS manifold would have this boundary B connecting to some other inflationary manifold with a different time direction. 

In the image below we have a hyperboloid with two green lines p = ±∞, which is the momentum-energy dual to I^{±∞} that serve as horizons. So we can this is the Fourier transform of the boundary B Vilenkin writes about. However, for this in a dS inflationary spacetime these regions are within 7 orders of magnitude of the Planck scale, and as one reaches this green line the momentum reaches the "Planck wall." So this hyperboloid then has a quantum gravity " suture" through it, where there may really be a different physics. More below

So the BVG boundary or the B in Vilenkin's paper is really a quantum gravitational region that probably has holographic content. It may well be that just as a black hole horizon has quantum information that is projected into the exterior and interior of the BH maybe the same holds here as well. The general action

S = ∫d^4x√g(R + χR^{αβμν}R_{αβμν})

for R the classical Ricci curvature scalar and the product of Riemann curvatures a quantum correction. Near p = ±∞ the quantum correction term dominates, while removed from this the quantum states enter into a coherent state that is more classical and one just has the Ricci scalar curvature. I still think there are big questions here.

LC

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/atvoid/38172827.2020075.1565229444080%40mail.yahoo.com.