On Wednesday, November 13, 2019 at 10:45:52 PM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > 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 >
The Planck scale is a sort of mirror scale, where anything on a trans-Planckian scale is not measurable for it is inside quantum black hole or the smallest region a qubit can be isolated in. A more sophisticated way of looking at this is with asymptotic safe quantum gravity. LC -- 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/d8488745-6b45-4fac-aaec-c4dbea5538ed%40googlegroups.com.
