Material Creation

[coldcreation]

0 K

BEC

Rotons

ZPE - ZPF

Superfluidity

Superconduction

Vacuum polarization

Transhallucinogenetics

Symmetric cryogenic cristals

The formation of complex structure

Anistropic superfluidity of liquid helium-3

Self-organization and far-from-equilibrium systems

Average canceling of magnetic moments of molecular hydrogen

The most sophisticated phases of matter transpire close to absolute zero temperature

Average canceling of magnetic moments of molecular hydrogen

Self-organization and far-from-equilibrium systems

Anistropic superfluidity of liquid helium-3

The formation of complex structure

Symmetric cryogenic cristals

Transhallucinogenetics

Vacuum polarization

Superconduction

Superfluidity

ZPE - ZPF

Rotons

BEC

0 K

[coldcreation]

By

virtue

of the Coldcreation

hypothesis, all forces of nature

find themselves synchronized at infinity

in the past; where if minus infinity were attainable

all the values of available force would be equal to zero.

Lets suppose for sake of discussion that infinity in the

past were attainable (another mind-boggling

experiment): The extent temperature

of the environment is absolute

zero, there’s no microwave

background radiation since

there are no sources emitting

radiation, the value of available energy

equals zero, the entropy of the universe is at

its lowest value ever, equal to zero, there are no atoms,

therefore no atomic forces, gravity or spacetime curvature is zero because

there is nothing present that gravitates, L is equal to zero, there are no differences

in pressure (so for all intents and purposes we can call pressure zero),

electromagnetic force equals zero, fluctuations or

turbulence of the vacuum bottom-out at nil flux. What we have

is an absolutely flat, empty, clear, pristine, smooth, isotropic,

homogenous, invariable, soothe, unexciting,

monotonous vacuum.

It’s not even freezing cold

because there’s nothing there to freeze,

its just downright cold. (Don’t forget the gloves).

Coldcreation

[questor]

and then ?

[coldcreation]

I

H

Hm,

Hmm,

Fortunately

for us and everything

else in the universe that infinity

in the past is unattainable, and that consequently

there has always been, even in the remote past, a glimmer of

potential force bouncing around off the substratum of the otherwise Euclidean

four-dimensional Minkowski spacetime. Indeed the universe has always been slightly agitated, animated, electrified, polarized, excited, here and there.

Notice though that on one hand, with respect to

high-energy physics, we have the

resilient theoretical

aporia of

unification

at

 

extremely

 

 

high

 

 

energies

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

at

 

 

 

 

 

extraordinarily

 

 

 

 

 

small

 

 

 

 

 

 

scales,

 

 

 

 

 

 

at

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

the

 

 

 

very

 

 

determined

 

 

instant in which

 

all material particles have

 

their starting point, in the interval of

 

an uncontrolled quantum leap and in accordance with

 

Heisenberg’s indeterminacy. And on the Coldcreation hand,

 

we have unification at extremely great distances (as far from here and now

 

as you can imagine, and then some) and at

 

extraordinarily low energy

 

 

(zero to be precise).

 

There is no

 

 

 

 

 

 

uncertainty

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or

 

 

indeterminacy

 

about

 

that.

 

 

 

 

Coldcreation

 

AKA, CC

 

Cc

 

c

.

.

..

....

..........

....................

..................................

.................................................

........................................................................

................................................................................................................

........................................................................

.................................................

..................................

...................

.........

...

..

.

[coldcreation]

Do not everyone respond at once.

 

Coldcreation has nothing to do with the hypothesis called the ekpyrotic model?in which the universe began as a three-dimensional void in a higher-dimension space, where two universes were attracted to each other by a weak interaction creating a collision that made real particles (the honeymoon effect).

 

The only similarity is that energy of motion is transferred (transformed) into matter and radiation. Understand though that in the case of a wave in the ocean, the water is not displacing itself at high speeds. Likewise, in space, it is the actual oscillation of the wave that is fast, not space itself. There is a subtle change in value, position and state around a mean value?a cycle of change between two extreme values or states that causes a peak, a break, a fundamental transition to a higher energy level.

 

t

h

e

 

c

o

l

d

 

c

r

e

a

t

i

o

n

 

o

f

 

m

a

t

t

e

r

 

 

No superhuman force was required. What we have is a dynamic general relativistic description of spacetime. Once the energy is sufficiently concentrated, the corresponding quantum mechanical approach tells us that these waves or ripples form bundles called quanta or elementary particles; for example, the quantum of the electromagnetic field is a particle known as the photon. But for now let us not become over confident with our simplified view of material creation. The crux of the problem is to understand the process as a natural outcome of fundamental principles.

 

 

c o l d c r e a t i o n

 

c.......o.......l.......d.......c.......r.......e.......a.......t.......i.......o.......n

o n

i

t

a

e

r

c

d

l

c o

[coldcreation]

Recall that a stable equilibrium state can be altered to a different state only by interactions that either leave net effects on the environment of the system (or subsystems), or by changing the amounts of constituents and parameters to different sets of values.

 

C-o--l---d----c-----r------e-------a--------t----------i-----------o-------------n

[Southtown]

Like an inverted nuclear detonation, correct? Nukes are pretty hot, so you're making sense to me, CC.

[Southtown]

And the pressure inside the "blackhole" center of galaxies could squeeze any ingested matter so much that atoms can't vibrate, couldn't it? Would that decrease temperature?

 

I ask because of Halton Arp's observations imply that galaxies emit new matter along their axes, the path of least resistance from within the gravitational center.

 

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm

[EWright]

C-o--l---d----c-----r------e-------a--------t----------i-----------o-------------n

 

E

X

T

R

E

M

E

L

Y

 

A

N

N

O

Y

I

N

G

!

!

!

[coldcreation]

And the pressure inside the "blackhole" center of galaxies could squeeze any ingested matter so much that atoms can't vibrate, couldn't it? Would that decrease temperature?

 

I ask because of Halton Arp's observations imply that galaxies emit new matter along their axes, the path of least resistance from within the gravitational center.

 

http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/controversies/Arp_controversy.htm

 

 

Hmm, not quite Southtown. Your remarks are a different theory. Nothing to do with Coldcreation. Arp has no cosmology theory (it has never been published if he does) and the blackhole idea you mention is not tenable. It is too mainstream for that.

 

My goal now is to emphasize the passage from order, homogeneity, and stability associated with the physical vacuum of the very early Coldcreation universe, to the fluctuations, instability, and non-homogenous structures observed today. We will see that the evolutionary blueprint is rooted in the fundamental laws of nature.

 

Certainly, these transitions, transformations occurred well outside the range and epoch of the visible universe, and so cannot be observed directly - but we can deduce the major trends from the empirical guidelines available here and now. We know for example that perturbations are amplified over the course of time for a large class of dynamic systems. As a consequence, we acquire a dynamic explanation that allows us to determine the historical development of the ensemble, including idiosyncratic time scales.

 

It has been known since the work of Henri Poincaré (1854-1912), the French mathematician famed as the founder of algebraic topology and the use of his theory on differential equations in celestial mechanics, that dynamical systems are characterized in terms of the kinetic energy of its constituents plus the potential energy due to their interactions. Furthermore, as Ilya Prigogine (1996) informs us, interacting fields lead to resonance patterns that “wander erratically” through regions of space, increasing entropy, leading to long-range correlations, chaos and the breaking of time symmetry - irreversibly - that acts over very long time-scales and that profoundly alter the macroscopic state of the system.

 

The state of lowest energy and lowest temperature is more 'ordered' than a state of high energy and temperature. The fact that this early 'empty' universe has a discernible state implies that it is not empty: “something” is present that transformations will act on changing its state. The irreducible vacuum fluctuations are a basic property of nature. It is the dynamic properties of the vacuum state that leads to instability, entropy, and provides the conditions required to generate time-oriented evolutionary relationships. Quantum fluctuations do not carry enough energy to break the symmetry of the early vacuum universe. For that, macrosopic relations are the rule.

 

Coldcreation

[coldcreation]

Yo, check this out:

 

Even though resonances in real systems are typically predictable within a given accuracy of the corresponding values, they provide important information on the existence of both symmetries and asymmetries in motion that leads to typical configurations and periodic recurrence of gravitational interactions. The physical vacuum is no exception to the laws of nature. The mean motion resonance of the ground-energy fluctuations of the primordial vacuum guarantees the reverberation of unambiguous geometrical configurations. Cool

 

Ilya Prigogine wrote:

 

“…phase transitions are ultimately defined by the thermodynamic limit…Phase transitions correspond to emerging properties. They are meaningful only at the level of populations, and not single particles. This contention is somewhat analogous to that which is based on Poincaré resonances. Persistent interactions mean that we cannot take a part of the system and consider it in isolation. It is at this global level, at the level of populations, that the symmetry between past and future is broken, and science can recognize the flow of time. This solves a long-standing puzzle. It is indeed in macroscopic physics that irreversibility and probability are the most conspicuous.” (1996, p. 45).

 

Coldcreation:

[coldcreation]

Ouuuuuuuuuuuuuuch! Brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Hot creation, or cold creation? Is it just a question of belief? What the world is dealing with, then (if you chose yes), is not a problem of nature, but of the mind. The question is hardly startling. In a sense, the world's imagination has been tainted with blaring assertions of brutal candor for eons.

 

Recall an ancient Hindu text:

 

If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky

That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One.

I am become death, The shatterer of the worlds.

 

Coldcreation

[questor]

CC, the more you write, the more it becomes apparent there is an unexplained or unexplainable force at work in the cosmos. this force could be responsible for all the events you or other theorists claim occurred, whether it be cold or hot creation or any other creation. this supernatural force would be capable of any act, including material or energy creation. if you could remove man and evolution from this equation, could you not then imagine the universe being created by a supernatural force ?

[Turtle]

... if you could remove man and evolution from this equation, could you not then imagine the universe being created by a supernatural force ?

 

But the 'if you could' in red is contrary to the fact we agree we are humans here discoursing at Hypography. Do you really truly deny your own existence? The 'could you not' in red is only logically connected to the red 'if you could' if the red 'if you could' is true; which it is not unless you deny your own existence.

Questor you ask many of the right questions; I read a lot hear. Let me ask you one; if you find what you are looking for, what have you planned to do with it? Keep digging Questor. G'donya

 

 

 

 

 

:naughty:

[questor]

many of the posters on this site are only able to think in terms of universal events as they pertain to man, therefore they argue about God or no God, meaning the God of man-made religion. they are unable to visualize the universe without man, this is why truth is opaque. if one would just consider facts as they present themselves in the natural world and try to account for these phenomena without injecting a man made relation with a creator, truth

would be better served. i think this is because of neural brain wiring which

allows certain pathways of thought for some, but disallows it for others.

[coldcreation]

CC, the more you write, the more it becomes apparent there is an unexplained or unexplainable force at work in the cosmos. this force could be responsible for all the events you or other theorists claim occurred, whether it be cold or hot creation or any other creation. this supernatural force would be capable of any act, including material or energy creation. if you could remove man and evolution from this equation, could you not then imagine the universe being created by a supernatural force ?

 

Actually Questor, since I began writing at Hypography I've always tried to make it perfectly clear that there was no outside (or inside) creator. There in fact is no unexplainable force(s) at work in the cosmos either. Hawking said it best (and for once I agree with Him): If the universe is infinite then there is no creator. My research confirms the infinite spatiotemporal nature of the cosmos. There is no unexplained force, energy of other: both GR and QM confirm that there is an irreducible ground energy, zero point energy, curvature, and corresponding zero point fluctuations, not to mention the first law of thermodynamics stating that energy cannot be created (or destroyed).

 

My argument has been, too, from the outset, that space plays an underlying role in the development of all things (fields, material objects, events etc.), like a court plays a role in a tennis match, like the table plays a role in billiards, and so on. There is no magic. Everything can be explained. Everything forms part of the physical world: imagination, creativity, consciousness included. To include the ladder within a physical theory has been controversial (sometimes even poorly taken), but this too is a consequence of my research. There was no voluntary query that led to it on my part. It just happened that way. There is nothing outside the universe, an so, all things can be explained within the bounds of natural laws, within physical theory.

 

This conclusion should not discourage you from your beliefs, not should it end your quest for the ultimate truth. But from the naturalist point of view man must make the distinction between what is real and what is pure invention, between what exists in this universe and what we create, imagine (then believe is real). The big bang is a remarkable example of something we’ve created, abstract, all mighty, an impossible figure, a one-sided Mobiüs strip, the creation of creators, the perfect golden yoke, the burst of glory, a divine flash of light, a new mythical god. To call it a myth is not to belittle its significance, it is (was) revolutionary. Mythologies were (are) indispensable to defining who we want to be, and especially, who we are.

 

Audacious revolutions are often nothing but a return to the methods of the old masters. While the Abbé Lemaître may never have read of Poe, who in “Heureka” (1848) described creation as an “instantaneous flash” he nevertheless was the shrewd reactionary, top bureaucratic protector of what quickly became official cosmology—and this, whether he believed in it or not. If voluntary and conscious imitation is the poorest example of human contemplation, is it certain that the innovators are always as foreign to the ideas they disclaim, as they believe? New errors and truths are often but forgotten errors and truths.

 

Coldcreation

[questor]

if what you say is true, then you and you alone have not the Final Theory

but the Final Conclusion. would it be presumptuous to ask for proof , for some phenomenae now under discussion, say cold creation itself ?