The laws of nature existed before space and time

[para bellum]

Oscillating universe fits Hindu theology ... there is no beginning of time ... there is no end of time ... just the ying of an expanding universe; and the yang of the collapsing universe ... in perfect balance ...

It is what it is and there ain't no more ...

It sounds good but it does not fit the observations. In a closed universe, gravity should be slowing the rate of expansion- the opposite is what is observed. Not only is it expanding, but it's expanding at an increasing rate.

A collapsing universe also implies a reverse in entropy- e.g. going from a state of disorder to a state of order, which is contrary to 2LOT.

So I tend to think the Big Crunch, "not likely". Universe appears open to me. Continued expansion until ultimately the "Cold Death".

I know, quite dismal, lol. As you say, it is what it is...

 

[trevorjohnson83]

has there ever been a single study into light being red shifted by distance alone?

Assistant
Poe


To date, there has not been a comprehensive study or accepted scientific model that attributes redshift solely to distance without considering the motion of the light source. Here’s a brief overview of the reasons and the context:

1. Cosmological Framework​

• The prevailing cosmological model is based on the expansion of the universe, where redshift is understood through the Doppler effect related to the recession of galaxies. This framework has been supported by extensive observational data.

2. Key Observational Evidence​

• Hubble's Law: Observations consistently show a correlation between distance and redshift that is interpreted as a result of galaxies moving away. This has been confirmed through numerous studies involving galaxy surveys and redshift measurements.

3. Theoretical Considerations​

• Theoretical models of cosmology, including general relativity, incorporate the expansion of space, which inherently links redshift to the motion of galaxies rather than distance alone.

4. Absence of Alternative Models​

• While alternative theories can be proposed, they have not gained traction or been substantiated by peer-reviewed studies. Most discussions around redshift focus on its connection to motion and the dynamics of an expanding universe.

Conclusion​

In summary, while there may be discussions or hypotheses about redshift related to distance alone, there is no significant body of scientific literature or studies that support this idea in a manner that challenges the established understanding of redshift as a consequence of motion and the expansion of the universe.

 

[ding]

Please explain infinite temperature in terms of conservation ... and quite frankly, I don't think you're capable enough to speak about QM ... I certain can't, not with my limited math abilities ... try googling "naked singularity" ...

Is there an experiment we can conduct to demonstrate your claims ... or is this philosophical gymnastics ... at least my crackpot theory holds true to conservation laws and QM ... and I have evidence, picometer differences at 10 billion light-years distance ... even Gandalf is impressed ...

Why? Because you can't accept the laws of nature had to exist before space and time? Isn't it self evident?

You think this shit happened randomly?

 

[ReinyDays]

Why? Because you can't accept the laws of nature had to exist before space and time? Isn't it self evident?

You think this shit happened randomly?

No ... infinite temperature isn't self-evident ... what is your self-evidence? ... if you're extrapolating, you should say so ...

Then you're off on your pseudo-science extreme ... "You think it's random" ... there's an ignorant strawman you're talking with ... my claim is there is no evidence available in the EM ... perhaps LIGO could unlock more information but that's decades away still ...

I'm not wholly convinced LoT refute the oscillating universe ... is the universe expanding caused by LoT, or is LoT caused by the expansion ... such that during collapse, the entropy of the universe is always increasing, the opposite of expansion ...

But as I already said ... my math skills aren't good enough ... and neither are yours apparently ...

 

[ding]

No ... infinite temperature isn't self-evident ... what is your self-evidence? ... if you're extrapolating, you should say so ...

Then you're off on your pseudo-science extreme ... "You think it's random" ... there's an ignorant strawman you're talking with ... my claim is there is no evidence available in the EM ... perhaps LIGO could unlock more information but that's decades away still ...

I'm not wholly convinced LoT refute the oscillating universe ... is the universe expanding caused by LoT, or is LoT caused by the expansion ... such that during collapse, the entropy of the universe is always increasing, the opposite of expansion ...

But as I already said ... my math skills aren't good enough ... and neither are yours apparently ...

My self evidence is that matter and energy do what matter and energy do because they follow laws of nature which are prescriptive and descriptive. Without these laws of nature the behavior of matter and energy would be random which we do not see.

 

[Donald H]

Do you have some sort of problem with the information about red shift i've presented? Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

Latest understanding is that our big bang was on bubble popping in a bathtub full of bubbles, and big bangs are happening as we speak.

Science's interpretation from the JWST.

Christianity needs to not be in a hurry to take it on as their latest creation theory.

 

[ding]

There is nothing in quantum physics that even attempts to describe space and time. That is only found in general relativity.

Quantum physics describes condensed matter- it cannot be applied to the universe as a whole. Einstein showed that space and time are physical and interact with matter, but there is no theory that merges general relativity with quantum mechanics in any satisfactory way.

String theories try, but the simplest forms require 7 or 11 or 23 dimensions, and we have no idea what those extra dimensions are supposed to look like, or where they went.

The problem is not trivial. What would a quantum of spacetime look like? In it's simplest form it has no matter at all. That makes it kind of hard to describe with the language of condensed-matter physics, lol. How would you combine these quanta into the curved and dynamical spacetime continuum that we observe?

Quantum physics has nothing to say about the creation of space and time. zip, nada.

Do you know what paired particle production is?

paired particle production, also known as pair production, is considered a phenomenon explained by quantum mechanics, as it describes the creation of a particle and its antiparticle from pure energy, which is fundamentally a quantum mechanical concept involving the conversion between energy and matter; this process demonstrates the wave-particle duality of matter and is best understood within the framework of quantum field theory. ​

​

 

[ReinyDays]

My self evidence is that matter and energy do what matter and energy do because they follow laws of nature which are prescriptive and descriptive. Without these laws of nature the behavior of matter and energy would be random which we do not see.

My question is what are you looking at? ... there are no photons from before t = 300,000 ... or t = 400,000 according to your citation ... the point being no one can describe the behaviors of matter and energy before that time ...

We can test our speculations in the laboratory ... but you can't claim to see that happening before there was seeing ... or it's metaphysics ...

 

[ding]

Latest understanding is that our big bang was on bubble popping in a bathtub full of bubbles, and big bangs are happening as we speak.

Science's interpretation from the JWST.

Christianity needs to not be in a hurry to take it on as their latest creation theory.

Don't you have some bible study coloring books you need to finish? Did you ever finish coloring the big fish?

 

[ReinyDays]

You've never heard me talk about red shift? ever?

Only in the context of æther ... i.e. psycho-babble ...

 

[para bellum]

Do you know what paired particle production is?

That has nothing to do with the universe before particles were able to form. Quantum physics is the physics of condensed matter, it is not applicable to space and time. That is exclusively the realm of general relativity.

 

[ding]

My question is what are you looking at? ... there are no photons from before t = 300,000 ... or t = 400,000 according to your citation ... the point being no one can describe the behaviors of matter and energy before that time ...

We can test our speculations in the laboratory ... but you can't claim to see that happening before there was seeing ... or it's metaphysics ...

I'm looking at how the universe was created from paired particle production (i.e. a quantum tunneling event). You know... the event which produced the CMB? The event that didn't violate the FLoT? You know.. the laws of nature?

 

[ding]

That has nothing to do with the universe before particles were able to form. Quantum physics is the physics of condensed matter, it is not applicable to space and time. That is exclusively the realm of general relativity.

It's literally how the universe was created and what produced the CMB. You know... e=mc^2?

 

[ding]

It's amazing that people who think they are qualified to discuss this subject don't know that the big bang theory is based upon a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production and that that is what produced the massive amount of cosmic microwave background radiation.

 

[ding]

That has nothing to do with the universe before particles were able to form. Quantum physics is the physics of condensed matter, it is not applicable to space and time. That is exclusively the realm of general relativity.

George Wald explains:

"...Our universe is made of four kinds of so-called elementary particles: neutrons, protons, electrons, and photons, which are particles of radiation. (I disregard neutrinos, since they do not interact with other matter; also the host of other particles that appear transiently in the course of high‑energy nuclear interactions.) The only important qualification one need make to such a simple statement is that the first three particles exist also as antiparticles, the particles constituting matter, the anti-particles anti-matter. When matter comes into contact with anti-matter they mutually annihilate each other, and their masses are instantly turned into radiation according to Einstein’s famous equation, E = mc2, in which E is the energy of the radiation, m is the annihilated mass, and c is the speed of light.

The positive and negative electric charges that divide particles from anti-particles are perfectly symmetrical. So the most reasonable expectation is that exactly equal numbers of both particles and anti-particles entered the Big Bang, the cosmic explosion in which our universe is thought to have begun. In that case, however, in the enormous compression of material at the Big Bang, there must have occurred a tremendous storm of mutual annihilation, ending with the conversion of all the particles and anti-particles into radiation. We should have come out of the Big Bang with a universe containing only radiation.

Fortunately for us, it seems that a tiny mistake was made. In 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at the Bell Telephone Laboratories in New Jersey discovered a new microwave radiation that fills the universe, coming equally from all directions, wherever one may be. It is by far the dominant radiation in the universe; billions of years of starlight have added to it only negligibly. It is commonly agreed that this is the residue remaining from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.

It turns out that there are about one billion photons of that radiation for every proton in the universe. Hence it is thought that what went into the Big Bang were not exactly equal numbers of particles and anti-particles, but that for every billion anti-particles there were one billion and one particles, so that when all the mutual annihilation had happened, there remained over that one particle per billion, and that now constitutes all the matter in the universe -- all the galaxies, the stars and planets, and of course all life..."

George Wald: Life and Mind in the Universe

elijahwald.com

 

[para bellum]

^^^none of that can happen before the forces that govern them emerged. There were no hadrons before a strong force, there were no atoms before electromagnetism.

And oh btw, e=mc^2 is general relativity, not quantum mechanics...

 

[ReinyDays]

It's amazing that people who think they are qualified to discuss this subject don't know that the big bang theory is based upon a quantum tunneling event of paired particle production and that that is what produced the massive amount of cosmic microwave background radiation.

Thank you for this admission ... you seem to be the only one ...

This post:

Do you know what paired particle production is?

paired particle production, also known as pair production, is considered a phenomenon explained by quantum mechanics, as it describes the creation of a particle and its antiparticle from pure energy, which is fundamentally a quantum mechanical concept involving the conversion between energy and matter; this process demonstrates the wave-particle duality of matter and is best understood within the framework of quantum field theory. ​

... and the Wikipedia article on Pair production are completely silent on matters of time and space ... other than the numerical value of c ...

Pair production in the laboratory follows conservation laws without fail ... why didn't pair production conserve matter/antimatter in the early universe? ... antimatter has mass, so E=mc^2 applies ...

 

[ding]

Thank you for this admission ... you seem to be the only one ...

This post:



... and the Wikipedia article on Pair production are completely silent on matters of time and space ... other than the numerical value of c ...

Pair production in the laboratory follows conservation laws without fail ... why didn't pair production conserve matter/antimatter in the early universe? ... antimatter has mass, so E=mc^2 applies ...

Paired particle production didn't conserve energy. Gravity did. The net energy of the universe is zero because gravity balanced the positive energy of the remaining matter/energy that was left over from all of the mutual annihilation.

Did you even listen to Vilenkin's explanation? It was only a 3 minute long video.

 

[ding]

[It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.] Vilenkin

 

[ding]

^^^none of that can happen before the forces that govern them emerged. There were no hadrons before a strong force, there were no atoms before electromagnetism.

And oh btw, e=mc2 is general relativity, not quantum mechanics...

Incorrect. The laws of nature were already in place.

[It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.]