Inflationary pie in the sky -
06-06-2005, 01:08 PM
Alan Guth called his inflationary cosmology ‘the ultimate free lunch’ meaning that everything can be created from nothing and that what is everything may very well include more than what we can see or hear or taste. But the fact is that his theory promises much more.
This theory can explain the universal lumpiness of stars and galaxies and in the same way also explain the uniform distribution of them. In a sense, it is a discrete or quantum theory as well as a continuum theory all in one. This is just like having the whole pie and eat it too. But the downside of it is that it needs to hypothesize various new concepts like negative pressure, (maybe also the following: negative energy, negative entropy, negative probability, negative length, negative volume, negative space, negative time) and repulsive gravity and inflaton (the spelling is correct without the “i”) field and still the theory does not clarify what is the real meaning of “nothing.” What is the mechanism inside “nothing” that initiated the inflation? What creates the inflaton field in the 1st place? Is it a force? Is it a vacuum fluctuation? What is the mechanism for this vacuum jitter?
For a theory of quantized space (TQS), the “nothing” that everyone is talking about is really the same thing as the square of energy. In this sense, the true vacuum field is just the field of squares of energies. The evenness of this field gives the usual 1st power of 3D energy and the oddness gives the structure of 4D matter. The square of energy can, at best, be simply described in a one-dimensional formalism, which indicates the use of vector fields for fundamental forces and distances. The general covariance form of this square of energy is
When thinking about mathematical/physical concepts you ussually think in the possibility for the negative of this. This is because many things o fthe universe are governed by opposites. I think on negative probability very commonly, as well as in negative dimensions and other engatives. But all these are, and I know this whiles I think about them, completely nonesense and useless. Not natural. Not explenational, only complicational.
I think it is impossible to describe/define/explain anything about nothing because anything is any-thing and nothing is no-thing, thus there can't be any-thing, or some-thing or every-thing in no-thing.
I like to think in "nothing" as a unique concept of mathematics and to explain nature, which when applied to existence or to languages becomes completely illogical and paradoxical.
Nothing means no matter but there still are energy and square of energy. Only the first power of energy is equivalent to matter as in and if the square of energy is continuous it is directly proportional to its 1st power as
Linear Mode
