The laws of nature existed before space and time

[Donald H]

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

I have no interest in your mean-spirited nature. You need to find a better way of dealing with the cause.

 

[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. The universe was created through a quantum tunneling event; a massive firestorm of paired particle annihilations. That's what produced the CMB and the remaining matter/energy in the universe. How else do you think it happened?

 

[ding]

I have no interest in your mean-spirited nature. You need to find a better way of dealing with the cause.

Try to color inside the lines this time, Donny.

 

[para bellum]

Incorrect. The laws of nature were already in place. The universe was created through a quantum tunneling event; a massive firestorm of paired particle annihilations. That's what produced the CMB and the remaining matter/energy in the universe. How else do you think it happened?

It is pointless to try explain anything to you. GR only gives us the relationship between matter and energy, it does not offer a mechanism for the big bang or describe the primordial egg.

What exactly happened and how wrt the BB is purely speculative.

The laws of physics are rooted in the 4 forces- that is indisputable, and those forces emerged after the Big Bang event according to the standard model of cosmology. If the forces had different values than they do, the laws of physics would be different as well.

Speaking about "laws of nature" is semantically void. If you can't say which specific laws you are referring to, your assertion is meaningless. "Eat or be eaten" is a "law of nature"...

 

[para bellum]

The entire point of the search for a grand unified theory- be it string theories, supersymmetry, whatever- is to unite the 4 forces. Theoretical physicists can unite electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces with quantum mechanics, but gravity eludes because there is no quantum theory of gravity.

Gravity is what remains of the primordial force after the other 3 emerged. There is no reason to presume e=mc^2 governed the Big Bang, matter had not even come into existence yet and a single, unified primordial force would be a very different force than gravity.

Attempts to describe the Big Bang using GR yield infinite temperatures and densities, which shows us that the theory is incomplete.

Anyone who claims to understand it all is blowing smoke....

 

[ReinyDays]

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.

Do you mean mass/energy ... of course it's conserved ... infinite temperature and infinite mass violate conservation laws ...

What is Vilenkin demonstrating ... or is it just pseudo-science ... my first comment to this thread:

What experiment can we perform to demonstrate any of the current Laws of Physics were valid before the Big Bang? ...

... still crickets ...

 

[trevorjohnson83]

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

Sure I'll switch gears. Please, explain away, what does calling the aether 'space time' and creating particles to replace aether theory, how does doing this explain the Michelson Morley results? In other words according to your science of psycho babble extreme, if I shot a cannonball in the direction the earth is heading, somehow, magically, the earth wouldn't catch up with ball making it appear to be traveling slower? or are you gonna troll me today?

 

[ding]

It is pointless to try explain anything to you. GR only gives us the relationship between matter and energy, it does not offer a mechanism for the big bang or describe the primordial egg.

What exactly happened and how wrt the BB is purely speculative.

The laws of physics are rooted in the 4 forces- that is indisputable, and those forces emerged after the Big Bang event according to the standard model of cosmology. If the forces had different values than they do, the laws of physics would be different as well.

Speaking about "laws of nature" is semantically void. If you can't say which specific laws you are referring to, your assertion is meaningless. "Eat or be eaten" is a "law of nature"...

Is the CMB speculative? Can you explain how such a massive amount of radiation was produced? There's nothing speculative about this. It's based upon evidence. Where's your evidence?

 

[ding]

Do you mean mass/energy ... of course it's conserved ... infinite temperature and infinite mass violate conservation laws ...

What is Vilenkin demonstrating ... or is it just pseudo-science ... my first comment to this thread:



... still crickets ...

I'm happy I was able to teach you guys about the mechanics behind the big bang. I think I'll have a celebratory beer.

 

[ding]

A quantum tunneling chain reaction of nearly equal amounts of matter and anti-matter - that was not pre-existing matter - equal to 1 billion times the mass of the universe following the laws of quantum mechanics and conservation.

 

[ding]

e=mc^2 is general relativity

Actually e=mc^2 is special relativity, not general relativity. General relativity is what describes how space and time evolve. Special relativity describes the equivalence between matter and energy; as in how much radiation (i.e. CMB) the matter and anti matter annihilations produced.

 

[ding]

The entire point of the search for a grand unified theory- be it string theories, supersymmetry, whatever- is to unite the 4 forces. Theoretical physicists can unite electromagnetism and the weak and strong nuclear forces with quantum mechanics, but gravity eludes because there is no quantum theory of gravity.

Gravity is what remains of the primordial force after the other 3 emerged. There is no reason to presume e=mc^2 governed the Big Bang, matter had not even come into existence yet and a single, unified primordial force would be a very different force than gravity.

Attempts to describe the Big Bang using GR yield infinite temperatures and densities, which shows us that the theory is incomplete.

Anyone who claims to understand it all is blowing smoke....

The entire point of this thread is to share the evidence for the laws of nature existing before space and time. No one has argued that e=mc^2 governed the Big Bang. e=mc^2 is the relationship between mass and energy (i.e. radiation). As in e=mc^2 explains how much mass it took to produce the radiation of the CMB which was produced through the quantum mechanic process of paired particle production. The laws of quantum mechanics and conservation existed before space and time because space and time were created according to those laws. The stupid shit you are bringing up has no bearing on this conversation. You don't even know the difference between special relativity and general relativity. So shut the fuck up.

 

[para bellum]

Is the CMB speculative? Can you explain how such a massive amount of radiation was produced? There's nothing speculative about this. It's based upon evidence. Where's your evidence?

The CMB is not speculation, it is empirical fact that has been measured many times.

ALL of cosmology is speculative. The Big Bang, the inflationary period, dark matter and energy, etc. These are possible explanations for the observations we make today, i..e speculation- none of them are without their problems.

 

[ding]

The CMB is not speculation, it is empirical fact that has been measured many times.

ALL of cosmology is speculative. The Big Bang, the inflationary period, dark matter and energy, etc. These are possible explanations for the observations we make today, i..e speculation- none of them are without their problems.

Why do you hate evidence so much?

What produced the CMB?

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.

 

[para bellum]

The entire point of this thread is to share the evidence for the laws of nature existing before space and time. No one has argued that e=mc^2 governed the Big Bang. e=mc^2 is the relationship between mass and energy (i.e. radiation). As in e=mc^2 explains how much mass it took to produce the radiation of the CMB which was produced through the quantum mechanic process of paired particle production. The laws of quantum mechanics and conservation existed before space and time because space and time were created according to those laws. The stupid shit you are bringing up has no bearing on this conversation. You don't even know the difference between special relativity and general relativity. So shut the fuck up.

Yes, special relativity. Does not change anything- it is just the relationship between mass and energy.

The breakdown of physics at the t=0 remains, the inability to show the mechanism or describe the primordial egg remains.

There were no laws of physics before the forces of physics emerged, that is a nonsensical assertion.

 

[para bellum]

Why do you hate evidence so much?

I do not hate evidence, I hate leaping to unwarranted conclusions and declarations of absolute truth based on defective reasoning.

What produced the CMB?

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.

The BB is the current best explanation, it does not mean it's perfect. It has many problems, a couple of which I have previously mentioned. In order to explain the flatness of the universe, we had to invent an inflationary period, with no explanation of what caused this inflation or why it stopped when it did.

In order to explain the motions of visible objects and the rate of expansion we see today, we had to invent dark energy and dark matter, with no explanation of what they are or what rules they follow.

Stop pretending physics has all the answers.

 

[ding]

Yes, special relativity. Does not change anything- it is just the relationship between mass and energy.

The breakdown of physics at the t=0 remains, the inability to show the mechanism or describe the primordial egg remains.

There were no laws of physics before the forces of physics emerged, that is a nonsensical assertion.

The evidence says otherwise. What evidence do you have that there were no laws of nature governing the creation of the universe? If there were no laws of nature in place what governed the creation of the universe?

 

[ding]

I do not hate evidence, I hate leaping to unwarranted conclusions and declarations of absolute truth based on defective reasoning.

The BB is the current best explanation, it does not mean it's perfect. It has many problems, a couple of which I have previously mentioned. In order to explain the flatness of the universe, we had to invent an inflationary period, with no explanation of what caused this inflation or why it stopped when it did.

In order to explain the motions of visible objects and the rate of expansion we see today, we had to invent dark energy and dark matter, with no explanation of what they are or what rules they follow.

Stop pretending physics has all the answers.

You keep ignoring the explanation for the CMB which is the key piece of evidence.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence says otherwise.

False.

An ontological parlor tricks says otherwise.

 

[ding]

False.

An ontological parlor tricks says otherwise.

Do you even know what the evidence is that I presented?

If the creation of the universe wasn't according to any laws of nature, then how did it even happen?