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

[ding]

 

[ding]

According to the laws of quantum mechanics a closed universe will spontaneously nucleate and will do so without violating the laws of conservation.

 

[abu afak]

Three more in row by Ding in his usual blitz attempt: a Youtube (bad sign), a meme (another), and a one-liner. (yet another)
All part of his effort to prove/deduce a god... and grab the page top.
Illogical.

Just googling His thread title! First up:

"AI Overview

"According to current scientific understanding, the creation of the universe, as described by the Big Bang theory, does NOT Violate the laws of conservation because the total energy of the universe is considered to be constant, even though it may have been concentrated in a very small space at the beginning; essentially, energy is not created or destroyed, just transformed into different forms."


EDlT: then below the embarrassed one-line, Boobtube bury-em-with-BS, ldiot continues doing same with FOUR MORE POSTS! Including several repeats.
Ding the Inadequate OCD last-worder Oft double/triple/quadruple posts!

`

 

[ding]

Three more in row by Ding in his usual blitz attempt: a Youtube (bad sign), a meme (another), and a one-liner. (yet another)
All part of his effort to prove/deduce a god... and grab the page top.
Illogical.

Just googling His thread title! First up:

"AI Overview

"According to current scientific understanding, the creation of the universe, as described by the Big Bang theory, does NOT Violate the laws of conservation because the total energy of the universe is considered to be constant, even though it may have been concentrated in a very small space at the beginning; essentially, energy is not created or destroyed, just transformed into different forms."

`

According to the laws of quantum mechanics a closed universe will spontaneously nucleate and will do so without violating the laws of conservation.



#winning

 

[ding]

the Big Bang theory, does NOT Violate the laws of conservation

That's what I said.

 

[ding]

So happy that Apu agrees with me that the universe beginning did not violate the law of conservation but was in accordance with the law of conservation.

 

[ding]

Which means the laws of nature were in place before the creation of space and time.

#winning

 

[fncceo]

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?

According to the Big Bang Theory, no.

Apparently, at the time The Universe exploded into existence, all the matter and energy in our present Universe existed in the form of a singularity.

How that singularity came into existence is another question.

 

[ding]

According to the Big Bang Theory, no.

Apparently, at the time The Universe exploded into existence, all the matter and energy in our present Universe existed in the form of a singularity.

How that singularity came into existence is another question.

There is much misunderstanding about what a singularity is. It's not a physical phenomenon. It's the mathematical limit of the solutions of Einstein's field equations. It's where the equations yield infinite density which isn't real. But here are two short videos which explain why the creation of the universe did not violate the laws of conservation.

 

[ding]

the Big Bang theory, does NOT Violate the laws of conservation

I know. That's the premise of this thread.

 

[Wuwei]

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.

The MOND theory obviates dark matter. There are many successes in both theories and a few failures. While dark matter requires new stuff, MOND is a modification of known theory.

I wonder why leptons and baryons were formed in equal number. If there were an slight excess of electrons, that would provide an extra inverse square law attractive force that the galactic fringe stars would see, but would have less effect on inner stars.

Gravitational lensing currently requires dark matter. However an electric field can bend light by Delbrück scattering, but it's a small effect. As small as gravitational lensing? Most sources say that galaxies are mostly electrically neutral. What does "mostly" mean.

 

[para bellum]

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.

BS. There is no physics to describe dark matter. It is fundamental to physics that light and matter interact.

These problems are only found in cosmology. They are based on observations that astronomers can't explain, so they attribute them to unknown forces or forms of matter that have no foundation in physics.

They are just ideas that were invented to make the observations conform to the established theory, then they say "look! it's a perfect fit! it must be correct!"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

BS. There is no physics to describe dark matter. It is fundamental to physics that light and matter interact.

Gravity describes how dark matter interacts with spacetime.. Gravity is physics. The concept of dark matter arose from the physics. Else we would not have noticed it at all. We would have just been looking at pretty galaxies, noticing they move. This is all I am saying.

 

[para bellum]

Gravity describes how dark matter interacts with spacetime.. Gravity is physics. The concept of dark matter arose from the physics. Else we would not have noticed it at all. We would have just been looking at pretty galaxies, noticing they move. This is all I am saying.

GR is physics, but dark matter does not arise from physics. It arises from astronomy, because astronomers cannot account for their observations without it.

Physics has no need or use for dark matter.

Physics was not searching for new fundamental forces, or new forms of matter- physics was happily hunting for a quantum theory of gravity to unify the 4 forces, and busily building new particle accelerators to validate the quantum theory of particle physics.

These are problems of cosmology, they do not appear anywhere else.

Ultimately, I believe they will be discarded. But if they are ever validated, it will require a completely new physics.

I have no problem saying there is likely more matter in the universe than we are able to detect right now. I have a problem when we say there is some new form of matter that does not conform to the standard model of physics, and that assumption is based entirely on cosmologies expectations of how the universe should behave.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Physics has no need or use for dark matter.

It does, if it wants to explain how galaxies behave. Dark matter doesn't even have to be a type of matter. It's just a concept name; we coined it so we could finish our sentences.

Physics very much needs a self-consistent explanation for the effects of dark matter.

These are problems of cosmology, they do not appear anywhere else.

Except for entanglement, in quantum mechanics...

Except for the Casimir Effect...

These are all, "effective theory".

This problem exists and has always existed. It is what we call the frontier of science. It is what makes us form new hypotheses.

 

[para bellum]

It does, if it wants to explain how galaxies behave.

That is astronomy's problem. Physics explains the 4 forces.

Except for entanglement, in quantum mechanics...

That does not require dark matter.

Except for the Casimir Effect

Again, nothing to do with dark matter.

 

[para bellum]

Dark matter doesn't even have to be a type of matter. It's just a concept name; we coined it so we could finish our sentences.

Yes, it is a tuning knob. A dial that cosmologists can turn to make their observations conform to GR's predictions of gravitational effects.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes, it is a tuning knob. A dial that cosmologists can turn to make their observations conform to GR's predictions of gravitational effects.

The knob cannot cannot be turned. The effects are measured. The measurements agree.. Something physical IS happening. We have already constrained its properties a great deal. Our ability to constrain its properties has now even led to useful predictions.

So any explanation will have to predict the same effects we can already predict, with our effective theory. Which will, no doubt, only grow in number.

Any implication that it can just be bent to our will is false.

 

[para bellum]

The knob cannot cannot be turned. The effects are measured.

Yes it can be turned, it is set to 95%.

The effects are not measured- it was assigned the same gravitational properties as normal matter, and the knob was set to match the measurements that were already made.

It's the same with Cosmic Inflation. The CMB was measured, and the rate and duration of inflation was set to produce that result.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Yes it can be turned, it is set to 95%.

No, the observations took us there. Based on the physics we have at our disposal. We didn't turn any knob. The knob turned us.