Connection-True Vacuum !

Mind Bending connection to the very OBSCURE True State (True Vacuum)

The True State or True Vacuum is held obscure because extremely few treat it as itself or by itself in science literature at the time of this writing.

This follows the outline and supporting literature of "Featureless True Vacuum".

The circumstance of the apparent lacking of angle, perturbation, kinetics  and material in the True State also reflects in the origination of what we call "our universe(s)" as a foundation and not just absence thereof. The True State reflects being the source whence "our universe(s)" or false vacuum is supplied even though our universe(s) and its arising is an ephemeral anomaly destined to decay of their own natures and not return to the True State. The false vacuum being an ephemeral condition and not lasting.

In a false vacuum for quantum level does not trickle down, it adjusts downward. In false vacuum, transition to true vacuum is augmented by turbulence and diffuseness of elements.

Throughout, one should keep in mind again and again that the True State is not premised  or measured on the natures we encounter as common and try not to resort to them. 

One may wonder what is the situation on behalf of matter in this scenario. What may be there that is in deep freeze so far below Kelvin temperature. Imagine a deep freeze room with any element present in frozen suspension. There is no solidity like an ice field or floe. If there be any elements, they cannot interact or attach (much like the "dark ages" claimed for the evolution of "our universe(s)"). Kinetics would not operate, angular size would not develop. Likewise, gravity which according to Einstein needs bodies to function, will have no hold. Gravity is geometric not a field.  Particles will be tiny and cannot accrete due to separation.

With a composed, frozen universe there is no thermal activity. Hence, there is no thermal ignition, e.g. "big bang" to wait for. Thermal ignition is not an essential prerequisite to a universe.

Looking again at heat. Heat, heat dissipation and modern relations to functions was brought about in the 19th century. At that time people speculated on presence of heat, it became nominal because those working on it in Europe assumed it was experienced on the planet and so marked it as a universal condition for calibration. (Lowest temperature was calculated on crystal by chemist, Walther Nernst in 1906, Nobel prize 1920. Inception of 3rd thermodynamic law.) Earthbound humans then did not comprehend the pervasive coldness of outer space, no experience of it and largely remained ignorant of it. So they measured according to the presence of heat, positively or negatively. Gauging by heat seems to be a presumptuous application in lieu of the more prevalent cold.

It would be a misleading case to measure the cosmos in terms of heat. For one, it is not primordial, there is no ascertainment that it was present before the "Big Bang" or such hot inflation scenarios. It is believed before the Big Bang there was coldness and darkness. So why give preference to heat for temperature gauging when heat was not present at or before the beginning of this cosmos and nothing was heated?

In the late 20th century, expansion was established as well as the dissipation of matter (baryons) which in the far future would not accrete again as it has. Further, heat death will not be able to provide revival of building capacity on the macro level, despite what is recorded to have occurred billions of years ago. Temperature will revert to coldness as it was before alleged hot inflation. Heat will not be perdurable and so a more consistent reference should be sought to measure by,  e.g. coldness which existed before a hot inflation at least and whence the cosmos is returning. The reference in science to resorting to heat will be found misleading in light of the above entered considerations of today.

Darkness will be pervasive throughout. This would be little different than our current cosmos developing "heat death". Darkness will be found at that time of heat death and will prevail on the macro scale. Likely there will be darkness or unlit universe toward the far future which will make visibility featureless, after the stars have burned out their fuel. (This is not to mention for the current cosmos what may have preceded its initial arising is unknown or undetermined at present time, nor is it clarified what preceded the  conditions whence the "big bang" arose, except featureless dark also at the beginning.)

The "universe" is geometrically flat, no clumping at least locally. No one direction entropy and so NO measure of time. Mayhap this is the only found condition of  immutable  or equilibrium many wish to posit. As such, it is free of turbulence and is perdurable in the true vacuum.

                           Addendum

This may give one a pause for additional thought. If at least on the macro level, which we live by, there seems to be no element or force that constitutes a perdurable cosmos. Entropy, time, stars and energy are transformable but not perdurable. Most science agrees when the stars burn out in this cosmos there will not be any more elements to sustain them or by which to produce anything more on the macro level (and may mark the end of the First Age). The heat death, as it is termed, immense distancing of elements will have an aeonian, very cold universe probably for as long as anyone can imagine. Could any underlying quantum activities that survive deep cold cobble together any composite or would they remain fluid or would their activity or existence likewise be compromised? Predominately low thermal equilibrium persists throughout and hence caps off any congregation of particles.

Would this situation also be the same for any other (material or 3 D) universe? On the macro level the composite factors will not be perdurable. Is decoeherence a universal of composite structures? (In a true vacuum, there would be of course no kinetic energy and so no expansion. Presence of particles would be very constrained, if at all present.)

Angular size (z>1) does not evince a currently strong cosmos. Along with critical density and density studies, the sustainable angular size parameters have shown the universe to be of a low density e.g. study of E.J. Guerra and Ruth Daly in 1998.

If the expansion of "our" cosmos by dark energy is very great or speeds up more than the properties can keep up, then the distribution of gases which contribute to forming stars will be too stretched to coalesce and for formation to be viable. Some posit that the cosmos is ongoing. Yet there are current reports that at least this universe is lining up for a "rip". Is this an example of stability or being perdurable?

Note: This work does not necessarily reflect on the entropy of current societies.

[This is a work in progress for the near future]