Did the creation of the universe violate the laws of conservation?

[para bellum]

Can you give an example?

Say, a time when the half-lifes we observe now did not hold, and why?

Or, like, when mass was different?

How would the same laws appear to act differently? Something would have to change, if not the forces themselves.

Trying to understand this .

The Ancient Greeks had no clue about nuclear decay, they could not describe a "law of physics" that governed nuclear decay. It does not mean nuclear decay was not taking place.

From the time particles could be formed and assemble into atoms, the "laws of physics" have been unchanged- meaning the way matter behaves has not changed.

There was a time when all the matter in the universe was in the form of a quark-gloun plasma. The laws of physics (as we describe them) do not govern the behavior of matter in this form- quarks and gluons cannot bind into protons and neutrons, there are no nuclei for electrons to bond to and form atoms, etc. QGP is a very weird form of matter that can only be described in terms of lattice gauge theory. Quantum physics cannot describe matter in this form. There is no nuclear decay because there is no weak nuclear force and no nuclei to decay, etc. The "laws of physics" as we know them do not exist yet.

That does not mean interactions are not happening- this was a time of continuous high-energy collisions of quarks and anti-quarks being produced and colliding and forming new quarks, photons, electrons and anti-electrons, mesons, etc- a very energetic time when matter was behaving like a super-fluid.

When the universe had cooled to the point where the 4 forces could emerge and govern the behavior of matter, the "laws of physics" that we know emerged simultaneously and have held sway ever since.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The Ancient Greeks had no clue about nuclear decay, they could not describe a "law of physics" that governed nuclear decay. It does not mean nuclear decay was not taking place.

From the time particles could be formed and assemble into atoms, the "laws of physics" have been unchanged- meaning the way matter behaves has not changed.

There was a time when all the matter in the universe was in the form of a quark-gloun plasma. The laws of physics (as we describe them) do not govern the behavior of matter in this form- quarks and gluons cannot bind into protons and neutrons, there are no nuclei for electrons to bond to and form atoms, etc. QGP is a very weird form of matter that can only be described in terms of lattice gauge theory. Quantum physics cannot describe matter in this form. There is no nuclear decay because there is no weak nuclear force and no nuclei to decay, etc. The "laws of physics" as we know them do not exist yet.

That does not mean interactions are not happening- this was a time of continuous high-energy collisions of quarks and anti-quarks being produced and colliding and forming new quarks, photons, electrons and anti-electrons, mesons, etc- a very energetic time when matter was behaving like a super-fluid.

When the universe had cooled to the point where the 4 forces could emerge and govern the behavior of matter, the "laws of physics" emerged simultaneously and have held sway ever since.

Okay,, but expansion had to happen, at some rate or another. The inflationary period fits the observations. Unless we find a way to undermine our measurements of time, there isn't a better explanation. Is there? There is disparity in the Hubble Constant, but not THAT much disparity.

 

[para bellum]

Okay,, but expansion had to happen, at some rate or another. The inflationary period fits the observations. Unless we find a way to undermine our measurements of time, there isn't a better explanation. Is there? There is disparity in the Hubble Constant, but not THAT much disparity.

Cosmic inflation is an undescribed phase of the big bang that was invented to make the theory fit the observations. It is the "Bang" part of the Big Bang.

The Hubble constant and normal spatial expansion is something else completely. The disparity is actually considered a crisis in cosmology, because there is no overlap between the estimates if you start with the CMB and work forward, compared to starting at the present day and working backwards. The disparity is about 10%, way beyond any measurement error. Something has to give...

That is a different problem though. What I don't like is when we insert things into the theories that cannot be reconciled by experimentation. Dark matter and Dark energy, and Cosmic Inflation to me are gimmicks- tuning knobs. We have no idea what they are and what causes them, or what rules they follow. We just put them in because the observations don't conform to the theory.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Cosmic inflation is an undescribed phase of the big bang that was invented to make the theory fit the observations.

Correct. We call that, "a hypothesis".

How to rule it out? I keep asking. It seems to pass every test. The timeline works. The physics works.

The Hubble constant and normal spatial expansion is something else completely. The disparity is actually considered a crisis in cosmology, because there is no overlap between the estimates if you start with the CMB and work forward, compared to starting at the present day and working backwards. The disparity is about 10%, way beyond any measurement error. Something has to give...

That is a different problem though. What I don't like is when we insert things into the theories that cannot be reconciled by experimentation. Dark matter and Dark energy, and Cosmic Inflation to me are gimmicks- we have no idea what they are and what causes them, or what rules they follow. We just put them in because the observations don't conform to the theory.

So, if I understand, you say we can't test it directly? Okay, fair enough, I don't disagree, same for cosmologists. But it isn't a random guess pasted onto theory. It is derived from the theory. It explains the smoothness of our universe that we observe.

The scientific world awaits a better explanation.

 

[Wuwei]

The Hubble constant and normal spatial expansion is something else completely. The disparity is actually considered a crisis in cosmology, because there is no overlap between the estimates if you start with the CMB and work forward, compared to starting at the present day and working backwards. The disparity is about 10%, way beyond any measurement error. Something has to give...

I'm not familiar with that. Do you have a reference? I vaguely remember reading a disparity maybe a year ago, but it wasn't clear.

An unsolved problem that I think is worse is that there is a consensus that the universe is flat, but if it has no boundary it can't be finite, yet the CMB, etc. definitely say the universe is flat. If we assume it's locally flat like your neighborhood is and the universe is spherical, then the sphere has to be much larger than what the CMB and the expansion would indicate. There is no topology that fits.

 

[para bellum]

I'm not familiar with that. Do you have a reference? I vaguely remember reading a disparity maybe a year ago, but it wasn't clear.

Here's one piece from Scientific American.

How a Dispute over a Single Number Became a Cosmological Crisis

Two divergent measurements of how fast the universe is expanding cannot both be right. Something must give—but what?

www.scientificamerican.com

An unsolved problem that I think is worse is that there is a consensus that the universe is flat, but if it has no boundary it can't be finite, yet the CMB, etc. definitely say the universe is flat. If we assume it's locally flat like your neighborhood is and the universe is spherical, then the sphere has to be much larger than what the CMB and the expansion would indicate. There is no topology that fits.

Yep. And most likely unknowable since the expansion is happening faster than information can travel. All we can do is see into the past.

 

[Wuwei]

Here's one piece from Scientific American.

How a Dispute over a Single Number Became a Cosmological Crisis

Two divergent measurements of how fast the universe is expanding cannot both be right. Something must give—but what?

www.scientificamerican.com

Yep. And most likely unknowable since the expansion is happening faster than information can travel. All we can do is see into the past.

Thank you. I will read it tomorrow.

 

[Captain Caveman]

The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

The law of conservation of mass states that mass can neither be created nor destroyed.

If the universe popped into existence 14 billion years ago in what is known as the Big Bang, how did the Big Bang not violate the laws of conservation?

I thought the Big Bang theory was debunked

 

[para bellum]

Thank you. I will read it tomorrow.

This is a more recent piece- nothing new in it, but shows that the problem is as yet unresolved.

Resolving the Hubble Tension: Webb’s Precise Measurements Illuminate the Universe’s Expansion Mystery

The Hubble constant's measurement discrepancy, known as the Hubble Tension, has been a significant puzzle in cosmology. The James Webb Space Telescope's confirmation of the Hubble Space Telescope's data has solidified the cosmic distance ladder's accuracy and suggested that the discrepancy might hin

scitechdaily.com

 

[abu afak]

More ding "science:" One a minute as usual.

Search results

www.usmessageboard.com

`

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More ding "science:" One a minute as usual.

Search results

www.usmessageboard.com

View attachment 1007687View attachment 1007687


`

Where have you been, fucktard?

I've missed your idiocy.

I see you're still overdoing estrogen.

 

[para bellum]

How to rule it out? I keep asking. It seems to pass every test. The timeline works. The physics works.

There is no physics to describe it, so you can't just say "the physics works".

But it isn't a random guess pasted onto theory. It is derived from the theory. It explains the smoothness of our universe that we observe.

It was not derived from theory. Nothing in physics implies or predicts unknown forces or effects should appear at some certain point. It was created because the observations do not match the predictions. There is no signature of Cosmic Inflation to be found.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Cosmic Inflation are pillars of the Standard Cosmological Model, and all 3 are based on unknown physics.

 

[Wuwei]

It was not derived from theory. Nothing in physics implies or predicts unknown forces or effects should appear at some certain point. It was created because the observations do not match the predictions. There is no signature of Cosmic Inflation to be found.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Cosmic Inflation are pillars of the Standard Cosmological Model, and all 3 are based on unknown physics.

And an inexplicable topology of space.
Also, can gravity be quantized or not.

I always thought Dark Matter was the new Phlogiston.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is no physics to describe it, so you can't just say "the physics works".

Yes you can. Just as you can say the physics of dark energy works. We can only test and theorize on the physics we know.

It still does work inside the framework we have.

So as of now, the physics works.

It was not derived from theory.

Inflationary period? It definitely was.

Same for dark matter. Something is interacting with matter that we cannot directly observe. Plug our observations into the current theory, and the idea of dark matter emerges.

Inflation was derived from the observations (CMB, etc) and all of our physical theory about spacetime.

If our theory is good, then we are compelled to include it.

Is this not what you mean?

 

[para bellum]

Yes you can. Just as you can say the physics of dark energy works. We can only test and theorize on the physics we know.

It still does work inside the framework we have.

So as of now, the physics works.



Inflationary period? It definitely was.

Same for dark matter. Something is interacting with matter that we cannot directly observe. Plug our observations into the current theory, and the idea of dark matter emerges.

Inflation was derived from the observations (CMB, etc) and all of our physical theory about spacetime.

If our theory is good, then we are compelled to include it.

Is this not what you mean?

Sorry, this is just a bunch a bunch of mumbo-jumbo.

You cannot equate cosmology with physics.

A black hole is an example of something previously unknown that was derived from theory. No one expected them to be real when they were initially proposed, and Einstein attempted to prove they couldn't exist. But GR implied their existence, and eventually they were proved to be real.

There are many examples in Chemistry and particle physics of discoveries that were derived from theory. The theory makes the prediction, and experiments are devised to test the prediction.

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Cosmic Inflation are not found anywhere outside of Cosmology- they are just concepts that were inserted as placeholders where physics breaks down. Nothing in physics suggests they should exist.

None of it "fits in" with any known physics. If they are ultimately shown to be real, it will be done with a completely new physics- a new force and new particles that are completely unknown to physics today.

 

[para bellum]

And an inexplicable topology of space.
Also, can gravity be quantized or not.

I always thought Dark Matter was the new Phlogiston.

You will find this interesting wrt the topology question.

Shape of the universe: could it be curved, not flat?

A study has suggested that the universe is curved like a sphere rather than flat, which may unleash a major crisis in cosmology.

theconversation.com

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You cannot equate cosmology with physics.

Nor did I. Talk about mumbo jumbo.

Yes, the physics works. Yes, it was derived from existing theory.

The scientific community awaits a better explanation.

Simple as that.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Dark Matter, Dark Energy, and Cosmic Inflation are not found anywhere outside of Cosmology- they are just concepts that were inserted as placeholders where physics breaks down.

This is patently false.

Dark matter doesn't break down physics. All of the visible matter behave precisely as expected under the influence of gravity caused by dark matter.

 

[Wuwei]

You will find this interesting wrt the topology question.

Shape of the universe: could it be curved, not flat?

A study has suggested that the universe is curved like a sphere rather than flat, which may unleash a major crisis in cosmology.

theconversation.com

Thank you; the article was enlightening. One pet peeve I have is that you often see observations like this, that I found in the article.

"In a curved universe, no matter which direction you travel in, you will end up at the starting point – just like on a sphere. "​

Even if you travel at the speed of light, always toward the CMB, you will never get to the starting point as the expanding universe impedes any progress. (Maybe) So the question is: does this circumnavigation stay within the light cone? It's only important philosophically.

I agree with the authors that a closed universe is a basic starting assumption. Since it doesn't fit other evidence, different ad hoc physics might.

 

[ding]

According to current scientific understanding, it is highly likely that some form of quantum mechanics existed before the Big Bang, as the prevailing theory is that the universe in its earliest moments was governed by quantum fluctuations and a quantum state.