Ali and Das, "Cosmology from quantum potential"

In summary: I'm not sure what is being described in the summary. Write more about what the specialists think about the implications of the paper.
  • #71
wabbit said:
To be honest I don't understand what you say here. And I don't think "quantum [mechanics ?] causes matter [to exist ?]" - I don't even know what this means. QM describes matter interactions or matter properties etc, it doesn't cause anything.
As to (a) yes as a mathematical theory GR works without matter, or even without anything i.e. GR can describe a theoretical vacuum - whether this is physics or "just maths" I don't know.
I don't know about (b) unless you mean "are there theories of matter that do not involve GR" but then the answer is obvious.

Thanks for the "like". It encourages me to delve deeper (see above)..

I know this is a naive viewpoint, but I always understood that matter is created and exists by means of the quantum function. I cannot imagine GR being causal to the creating of matter (except in an indirect way), as IMO, it seems to deal with the geometric relationships between matter, rather than the existence of matter itself.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #72
Imho, I am not so sure that qm explains the cause of anything. It describes interactions, the forces, uncertainties associated with experiments. I don't see it really explaining anything like for instance why quarks are fundamental, or leptons for that matter; it just says they are.
 
  • Like
Likes wabbit
  • #73
write4u said:
matter is created and exists by means of the quantum function.
I still cannot get what you mean here - read litterally it makes no sense to me : it sounds like you are ascribing to physics powers it doesn't have.
Perhaps you are thinking of creation/annihilation operators in QFT. These can be thought of as describing (certainly not causing) the creation of matter in a specific sense (I personally find it less misleading to think they describe how one aspect of matter fields, namely particle count, changes - but I'm probably splitting hairs at this point).
GR (...) seems to deal with the geometric relationships between matter, rather than the existence of matter itself.
Agreed, sounds to me like a good way to put it.
 
Last edited:
  • #74
BiGyElLoWhAt said:
Imho, I am not so sure that qm explains the cause of anything. It describes interactions, the forces, uncertainties associated with experiments. I don't see it really explaining anything like for instance why quarks are fundamental, or leptons for that matter; it just says they are.

But even superluminal virtual particles are formed at some point and as I understand it QM is the function (not necessarily the cause) by which these particles are formed. QM is an energetic function, whereas GR is geometric function.

From what I understand, David Bohm explained the progression and conversion from waves of pure energy (holomovement) with infinite potential, from which implications form, eventually becoming explicated in physical reality, IOW, the formation of the universe as we know it to be today.
In his later career, de Broglie worked to develop a https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Causality_(physics) explanation of wave mechanics, in opposition to the wholly https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Probabilistic models which dominate https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/Quantum_mechanical theory; it was refined by https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/David_Bohm in the 1950s. The theory has since been known as the https://www.physicsforums.com/wiki/De_Broglie%E2%80%93Bohm_theory .
and
One of the most impressive theories emerging out of scientific cosmology respecting these ancient truths was set forth by the late physicist, David Bohm in his book, Wholeness and the Implicate Order. Using the language of mathematics, Bohm set out to describe the transcendent reality and its graded energetic hierarchy in four basic states or orders of energy beginning with the physical world, which he called the Explicate Order. (NOTE: he is working backward from the macro world of reality)

'The Explicate Order, weakest of all energy systems, resonates out of and is an expression of an infinitely more powerful order of energy called the Implicate order. It is the precursor of the Explicate, the dreamlike vision or the ideal presentation of that which is to become manifest as a physical object. The Implicate order implies within it all physical universes. However, it resonates from an energy field which is yet greater, the realm of pure potential. It is pure potential because nothing is implied within it; implications form in the implicate order and then express themselves in the explicate order. Bohm goes on to postulate a final state of infinite [zero point] energy which he calls the realm of insight intelligence. The creative process springs from this realm. Energy is generated there, gathers its pure potential, and implies within its eventual expression as the explicate order.' Will Keepin, David Bohm, Noetic Science Journal

When Bohm's resonant fields are arranged in a vibrational hierarchy they represent energy in successive states of manifestation from infinitely subtle to the gross physical reality
.
It would be reasonable to assume that the simplest particles are formed first from wave harmonics and interferences. Some particles combine and form more massive (less energetic) particles, which, due to inertia are no longer able to travel at C, and require acceleration and time to reach their natural speed.

My fundamental assumption (quite possibly wrong) is that the BB (superluminal) inflation and all matter formed within the emerging spacetime was caused by a single mega-quantum event, where everything happened all at once, and in the same place (a singularity of any size). The resulting chaos slowly ordered itself as matter began to form along with gravity from physical attraction and the expansion of spacetime metrics.

Fundametally I see QM as an energetic function, whereas GR is an emerging property along with the expansion of the universe.

If I ask myself if GR could exist (other than as a potential) prior to the BB, the answer is no as no physical objects (subject to GR) existed prior to the BB. We do know that potential for energy must have existed prior to the BB, or else the incalculable released energy could never have happened. However, this is not to say that the potential for GR did not exist prior to the BB, but only in a latent form, which emerged along with the evolution of the universe.
But again, I am open to correction.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #75
wabbit said:
I still cannot get what you mean here - read litterally it makes no sense to me : it sounds like you are ascribing to physics powers it doesn't have.

I am sorry, the term "creation" of matter is misleading. A better term might be "evolution" of matter and energy.
Perhaps you are thinking of creation/annihilation operators in QFT. These can be thought of as describing (certainly not causing) the creation of matter in a specific sense (I personally find it less misleading to think they describe how one aspect of matter fields, namely particle count, changes - but I'm probably splitting hairs at this point).

Agreed, sounds to me like a good way to put it.

If I may be so bold to offer a sumation: QM is a constant energetic function, GR is a relative geometric function.

This will be my last post on this subject as I do not want to hijack the thread from more erudite minds.

I'll just observe and continue to research the subject. Thanks all for your patience in dealing with this layman's view.
 
Last edited:
  • #77
DiracPool said:
as a non-cosmologist, what do we know to a good degree of confidence, and what specifically is on the frontiers of speculation.

- it's all speculation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
710
Replies
28
Views
4K
Replies
14
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Back
Top