On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 5:35:51 PM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 1:14:40 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 6:11:46 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 3:27:08 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, November 12, 2019 at 11:03:14 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 11, 2019 at 8:36:35 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm watching a science channel about the BB. It's claimed that in the >>>>>> VERY early universe, a few seconds after the BB, it was so HOT that >>>>>> Hydrogen was fusing into Helium. BUT ... I thought Hydrogen didn't form >>>>>> until around 380,000 years AFTER the BB, when the CMBR formed. What's >>>>>> going >>>>>> on? TIA, AG >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are thinking of hydrogen atoms. After the first three minutes, >>>>> when EW was unified, there was a 20 minute period where temperatures >>>>> permitted p + p --> D + e^ + neutrino. These could fuse into He_2^4. A >>>>> quarter of all protons fused into alpha nuclei. This was predicted and >>>>> supports BB. The temperature of universe was billions to hundreds of >>>>> millions K. Interesting that mush fusion happened that quickly. It was >>>>> later when temperatures dropped below 10,000K or so that hydrogen and >>>>> helium atoms formed. >>>>> >>>>> LC >>>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, the documentary referred to "hydrogen", not protons. Does the BB >>>> theory explain the existence of protons during the first few seconds or >>>> minutes using the quantum foam? AG >>>> >>> >>> Protons emerged from a quark-gluon plasma state after about 3 seconds. >>> This is also around when the EW symmetry broke. >>> >>> LC >>> >> >> The thrust of my question was about the quantum foam. I note that Bruce >> emphatically denies the existence of the quantum foam. But the emergence of >> particles from the vacuum seems to depend on the existence of the quantum >> foam. So, in your opinion, does the emergence of particles from the vacuum >> depend on the existence of the quantum foam? TIA, AG >> > > Quantum foam is Planck scale or near Planck scale physics. There are a > number of definitions of quantum foam. Really all it means is that if you > try to isolate a quantum bit or qubit in a very small region, the Planck > length ℓ_p = √Għ/c^3, you find it in a black hole. At this point the > energy of the probe is equal to the mass of a quantum black hole. If you > are not trying to isolate information or matter into such as extremely > small scale spacetime is continuous and smooth all the way to almost > infinitesimally small length. > > LC >
Then particles hypothetically emerging from dimensions smaller than Planck scale CANNOT emerge, insofar as they're inside a BH. Doesn't this imply, if true, that the very early universe could never have been smaller than Planck scale? AG -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cec2f115-5f68-4680-ad39-0bda2ce1bf78%40googlegroups.com.
