On Sat, Dec 29, 2018 at 2:06 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 28, 2018 at 5:14 AM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Why has the inflation not been seen at LHC? >>>> >>> >>> >> The LHC just went offline, when it comes back online after 2 years >>> of upgrades it should reach energies close to 15 TeV which corresponds to a >>> temperature of 10^17 Kelvin, and that is the temperature the entire >>> universe was in when it was about 10^-17 seconds old. But inflation was >>> over by the time the universe was 10^-35 seconds old. To inflation the >>> universe was already ancient when it was 10^-17 seconds old. >>> >> >> *> I meant to write that the "inflaton", the particle associated with the >> inflation field, would have been seen at LHC since it must couple strongly >> to normal matter, * >> > > If the creation of the inflaton required conditions that existed when the > universe was 10^-44 seconds old and inflation had decayed away when it was > 10^-35 seconds old then the particle associated with the inflation field > would have decayed away too and we wouldn't expect to see it today even at > places where we can reproduce conditions the universe was in when it was > 10^-17 seconds old. If it still existed it would still be strongly > connected to regular matter but we could not detect it but the universe > could and would still be expanding at an exponential rate and galaxies > stars and planets would not exist, we couldn't detect it because we > wouldn't exist either. > Very good reasons for saying that no such field or particle exists, or have ever existed. > *> Getting density fluctuations from quantum mechanics would violate >> energy conservation.* >> > > If there were no density fluctuations in a gas you could know both the > position and velocity of every particle in it and that would most certainly > violate the laws of quantum mechanics. > I hope you understand the difference between thermal fluctuations and quantum fluctuations.... > And we've had experimental confirmation for nearly a century that at the > cosmological scale energy is not conserved. The expansion of the universe > causes all photons to be redshifted and lose energy, a clear violation of > energy conservation. And there are theoretical reasons for thinking so too. > Noether's theorem says for every symmetry in physics there is a > corresponding conservation law, so if the laws of physics don't change with > time then energy is conserved. But General Relativity says the space a > particle is moving through* can* change with time so energy is *not* > conserved. If spacetime is curved the energy associated with a point in it > doesn't even have a unique definition. > In GR, energy is not conserved in non-static space-times. But energy is exactly conserved locally. Again, study the difference between these situations..... Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
