General Relativity, a question.

I came across this while reading some articles at Internet Infidels.
The following quote can be found at Mark Vuletic Vacuum » Internet Infidels. Can someone with more knowledge in this area give me an idea as to the accuracy of this statement?

quote:

---

In general relativity, spacetime can be empty of matter or radiation and still contain energy stored in its curvature. Uncaused, random quantum fluctuations in a flat, empty, featureless spacetime can produce local regions with positive or negative curvature. This is called the "spacetime foam" and the regions are called "bubbles of false vacuum." Wherever the curvature is positive a bubble of false vacuum will, according to Einstein's equations, exponentially inflate. In 10-42 seconds the bubble will expand to the size of a proton and the energy within will be sufficient to produce all the mass of the universe.

​

The bubbles start out with no matter, radiation, or force fields and maximum entropy. They contain energy in their curvature, and so are a "false vacuum." As they expand, the energy within increases exponentially. This does not violate energy conservation since the false vacuum has a negative pressure (believe me, this is all follows from the equations that Einstein wrote down in 1916) so the expanding bubble does work on itself.

​

As the bubble universe expands, a kind of friction occurs in which energy is converted into particles. The temperature then drops and a series of spontaneous symmetry breaking processes occurs, as in a magnet cooled below the Curie point and a essentially random structure of the particles and forces appears. Inflation stops and we move into the more familiar big bang.

​

The forces and particles that appear are more-or-less random, governed only by symmetry principles (like the conservation principles of energy and momentum) that are also not the product of design but exactly what one has in the absence of design.

​

The so-called "anthropic coincidences," in which the particles and forces of physics seem to be "fine-tuned" for the production of Carbon-based life are explained by the fact that the spacetime foam has an infinite number of universes popping off, each different. We just happen to be in the one where the forces and particles lent themselves to the generation of carbon and other atoms with the complexity necessary to evolve living and thinking organisms. (Stenger, 1996)

---

------------------
compmage[This message has been edited by compmage, 10-09-2002][This message has been edited by compmage, 10-10-2002]

This is one legitimate possibility in a family of scenarios currently under consideration by physicists. That the article makes it seem like we've fixed upon this single explanation is misleading. These issues are all very much in the speculative stage at this point.--Percy

quote:

---

Originally posted by Percipient:
This is one legitimate possibility in a family of scenarios currently under consideration by physicists. That the article makes it seem like we've fixed upon this single explanation is misleading. These issues are all very much in the speculative stage at this point.

---

The article was more a collection of quotes from scientist indicating the possibility of 'something from nothing' and I didn't read it to mean that this was generally accepted as fact.I was interested mainly because the only instance of 'something from nothing' that I am aware of, is the Casmir Effect (sp?) which, if I remember correctly, ties into Quantum Mechanics. I was not aware that General Relativity allowed for random quantum fluctuations to burgeon into universes. Whether this is what actually happened remains to be seen.------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:
I was not aware that General Relativity allowed for random quantum fluctuations to burgeon into universes. Whether this is what actually happened remains to be seen.

​

---

But first quantum mechanics and general relativity have to learn to ply nice. ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

But first quantum mechanics and general relativity have to learn to ply nice.

---

Unified Field Theory?------------------
compmage

quote:

---

Originally posted by compmage:

Unified Field Theory?

​

---

Something like, yeah. The best contenders seem to be the string/brane theories but I wouldn't put money on anything just yet. You gotta love a theory named P-brane. ------------------
http://www.hells-handmaiden.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by John:

Something like, yeah. The best contenders seem to be the string/brane theories but I wouldn't put money on anything just yet. You gotta love a theory named P-brane.

---

LOL
I wonder what implications this has for ID. P-brane responsible for 'desinging' the universe. ------------------
compmage