The Laws of Nature existed before space and time

[BreezeWood]

Some people only have one thing they can say, and then some have two.

and some have nothing at all, just cut and paste.

 

[expat_panama]

...BB is a loop: matter to energy to matter, the transformation occurs at the moment of Singularity.

That's a new one. Here's a typical picture of how most people say the universe began (others available at https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=998&bih=789&q=univers+birth&oq=univers+birth&gs_l=img.3...3682.9686.0.10430.14.9.0.5.3.0.113.862.1j7.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.10.770.0..0j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i19k1j0i5i10i30i19k1j0i8i30i19k1.KigLi4iEJ2k#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=big+bang+theory+science&* ), and it represents time as a left-right span and space as up/down/in/out spans. Everything in the universe through out time is inside the figure. We need to understand that the picture was drawn from a viewpoint that's outside the universe --a view point that is timeless and beyond space itself.

This is a 'God's-eye' view, it's seen from a very unnatural place.

When we say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we're using God's clock that He keeps next to the camera that took this picture. If the clock were in the universe then it would have been moving very very fast back when the universe was young. When something moves faster time goes slower ( re https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=explain+time+slower+when+moving+faster&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= ). When the universe was born everything traveled at the speed of light and time did not move.

We can only think about something preceding some event if time moves. If time stops then "before" doesn't happen.

...before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?

...most cosmologists and physicists who accept inflation also accept this...

Please tell me which natural laws did you and/or those guys are talking about. If it's too hard for you to tell me what page the list is on then I'd imagine there is no list.

 

[ding]

...BB is a loop: matter to energy to matter, the transformation occurs at the moment of Singularity.

That's a new one. Here's a typical picture of how most people say the universe began (others available at https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=998&bih=789&q=univers+birth&oq=univers+birth&gs_l=img.3...3682.9686.0.10430.14.9.0.5.3.0.113.862.1j7.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.10.770.0..0j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i19k1j0i5i10i30i19k1j0i8i30i19k1.KigLi4iEJ2k#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=big+bang+theory+science&* ), and it represents time as a left-right span and space as up/down/in/out spans. Everything in the universe through out time is inside the figure. We need to understand that the picture was drawn from a viewpoint that's outside the universe --a view point that is timeless and beyond space itself.

This is a 'God's-eye' view, it's seen from a very unnatural place.

When we say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we're using God's clock that He keeps next to the camera that took this picture. If the clock were in the universe then it would have been moving very very fast back when the universe was young. When something moves faster time goes slower ( re https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=explain+time+slower+when+moving+faster&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= ). When the universe was born everything traveled at the speed of light and time did not move.

We can only think about something preceding some event if time moves. If time stops then "before" doesn't happen.

...before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?

...most cosmologists and physicists who accept inflation also accept this...

Please tell me which natural laws did you and/or those guys are talking about. If it's too hard for you to tell me what page the list is on then I'd imagine there is no list.

That's a great picture. It shows everything I have been discussing. It starts with a quantum fluctuation as described in the OP, goes through inflation where the repulsive force of the gravity of the matter exponentially created all matter in the universe and then expands and cools.

The natural law that I am talking about is the conservation of energy. The net energy of the universe is zero as the positive force of matter is perfectly balanced by the negative force of gravity which is a result of the matter. The net energy of the universe has always and will always be zero for this very reason. So there is no violation of the natural law of conservation of energy when the quantum fluctuations occurred or when inflation occurred as the force of gravity always balanced the force of matter.

If you want to read good description of inflation and see the math behind it, "An Introduction to Cosmology" by Barbara Ryden does an excellent job. You can read all about it starting on page 233.

http://atlas.physics.arizona.edu/~kjohns/downloads/lsst/Ryden_IntroCosmo.pdf

 

[Paladin_]

It isn't my argument. It is called inflation. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. It explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed. It is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation.

Do you have a model that explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, why no magnetic monopoles have been observed and is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation?

Ding, I actually AGREE with you! As you said, it's "not your argument." What you've identified is the inflationary model (which seems pretty plausible to me). But what YOUR argument describes is a state of affairs PRIOR to the inflationary period following the Big Bang. So quoting it doesn't support your hypothesis at all. Sorry.

 

[ding]

It isn't my argument. It is called inflation. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. It explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed. It is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation.

Do you have a model that explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, why no magnetic monopoles have been observed and is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation?

Ding, I actually AGREE with you! As you said, it's "not your argument." What you've identified is the inflationary model (which seems pretty plausible to me). But what YOUR argument describes is a state of affairs PRIOR to the inflationary period following the Big Bang. So quoting it doesn't support your hypothesis at all. Sorry.

Then you are disagreeing with Alan Guth's and Alexander Vilenkin's. This too is not my argument. It is Alan Guth and Alexander Vilenkin argument.

 

[Paladin_]

So now let me explain why you are wrong. By definition, if the universe were cyclical then it cannot be an open system which means it is a closed or isolated system. Therefore, we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem.

An open universe on the other hand, will expand forever. Even without dark energy, an open universe expands forever, with gravity negligibly slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

So if the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.

Ding, I think we're both getting our lines crossed with regard to the multiple meanings of "closed" and "open" systems and universes. In one regard, "closed" and "open" refers to the possibility of energy or matter being introduced into a system. But it in another regard, "closed" and "open" refers to whether the universe has sufficient critical mass to reverse expansion and begin contraction ("closed") or insufficient critical mass, which ensures continued expansion and eventual heat death ("open").

I was referring to the former (and you seemed to be initially, in expounding your hypothesis and focusing on the 2nd law). But now, you're referring to the latter, which doesn't really seem relevant.

 

[ding]

So now let me explain why you are wrong. By definition, if the universe were cyclical then it cannot be an open system which means it is a closed or isolated system. Therefore, we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem.

An open universe on the other hand, will expand forever. Even without dark energy, an open universe expands forever, with gravity negligibly slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

So if the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.

Ding, I think we're both getting our lines crossed with regard to the multiple meanings of "closed" and "open" systems and universes. In one regard, "closed" and "open" refers to the possibility of energy or matter being introduced into a system. But it in another regard, "closed" and "open" refers to whether the universe has sufficient critical mass to reverse expansion and begin contraction ("closed") or insufficient critical mass, which ensures that expansion and eventual heat death ("open").

I was referring to the former (and you seemed to be initially, in expounding your hypothesis and focusing on the 2nd law). But now, you're referring to the latter, which doesn't really seem relevant.

Dr. Vilenkin and Alan Guth believe that space and time is eternal into the future but not eternal into the past, right? So can you tell me if they believe the universe is infinite acting and has existed eternally?

 

[BreezeWood]

...BB is a loop: matter to energy to matter, the transformation occurs at the moment of Singularity.

That's a new one. Here's a typical picture of how most people say the universe began (others available at https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&site=imghp&tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=998&bih=789&q=univers+birth&oq=univers+birth&gs_l=img.3...3682.9686.0.10430.14.9.0.5.3.0.113.862.1j7.8.0....0...1ac.1.64.img..1.10.770.0..0j0i10k1j0i30k1j0i19k1j0i5i10i30i19k1j0i8i30i19k1.KigLi4iEJ2k#hl=en&tbm=isch&q=big+bang+theory+science&* ), and it represents time as a left-right span and space as up/down/in/out spans. Everything in the universe through out time is inside the figure. We need to understand that the picture was drawn from a viewpoint that's outside the universe --a view point that is timeless and beyond space itself.

This is a 'God's-eye' view, it's seen from a very unnatural place.

When we say the universe is 13.7 billion years old, we're using God's clock that He keeps next to the camera that took this picture. If the clock were in the universe then it would have been moving very very fast back when the universe was young. When something moves faster time goes slower ( re https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&as_q=explain+time+slower+when+moving+faster&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=&as_occt=any&safe=images&as_filetype=&as_rights= ). When the universe was born everything traveled at the speed of light and time did not move.

We can only think about something preceding some event if time moves. If time stops then "before" doesn't happen.

...before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?

...most cosmologists and physicists who accept inflation also accept this...

Please tell me which natural laws did you and/or those guys are talking about. If it's too hard for you to tell me what page the list is on then I'd imagine there is no list.

.

This is a 'God's-eye' view, it's seen from a very unnatural place.

your image seems to be coning at its outer limit - continue that cone where its angular trajectory (finite angle) wraps back in the form of a loop as matter in mass is traveling in a angular trajectory the field will circumvent from the apex back to its origin recreating the compaction that will again create a new moment of Singularity - the matter is crushed into energy that then when the momentum subsides the energy is expelled to reform as matter.

anotherwords, your image placed back to back - the beginning in the middle. the two cones wrapping back to join as a continuous angular trajectory.




.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

trajectory of mass propelled along a finite angle in a vacuum ...


it does not flatten out and is a finite angle from the beginning and at the apex it then circumvents where in time all the matter will return to its origin in unison as a mirror image.

 

[ding]

So now let me explain why you are wrong. By definition, if the universe were cyclical then it cannot be an open system which means it is a closed or isolated system. Therefore, we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem.

An open universe on the other hand, will expand forever. Even without dark energy, an open universe expands forever, with gravity negligibly slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

So if the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.

Ding, I think we're both getting our lines crossed with regard to the multiple meanings of "closed" and "open" systems and universes. In one regard, "closed" and "open" refers to the possibility of energy or matter being introduced into a system. But it in another regard, "closed" and "open" refers to whether the universe has sufficient critical mass to reverse expansion and begin contraction ("closed") or insufficient critical mass, which ensures continued expansion and eventual heat death ("open").

I was referring to the former (and you seemed to be initially, in expounding your hypothesis and focusing on the 2nd law). But now, you're referring to the latter, which doesn't really seem relevant.

My point was that both paths still lead back to the universe having a beginning. If it is an open system then if you follow it back in time you get back to a beginning of space and time. If it is a closed system and it alternates between a big crunch and big bang it eventually reaches thermal equilibrium as time approaches infinity which means that it too would have had a beginning at some point in time. This is why both Guth and Vilenkin believe that space and time had a beginning and that beginning was through quantum forces and inflation which did create space and time at some finite point in the past.

 

[Mudda]

"The Laws of Nature existed before space and time"

So why didn't you talk about that? You were again blubbering on about the beginning of the universe.

 

[expat_panama]

...The natural law that I am talking about is the conservation of energy.

Ofcourse the "C.O.E." doctrine fell out of favor a hundred years ago w/ the understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable, so maybe we're talking about a kind of conservation of 'matter/energy', although most matter/energy in known space is plasma --our matter/energy soup. What we know now is that the vast majority of the universe's matter is dark matter and most energy seems to be 'dark energy' which is a kind of negative gravity but I digress.

...The net energy of the universe is zero as the positive force of matter is perfectly balanced by the negative force of gravity which is a result of the matter. The net energy of the universe has always and will always be zero...

Please tell me which "universe" we're talking about.

Usually we consider all space and everything in it that's physically observable. Then let's consider that w/ space expanding, the departure speed of most distant masses exceed the speed of light and cease to be in our universe. This in turn says that eventually 'our' universe may end up going down to its last photon sitting all by itself, and its wavelength will continue to lengthen w/ space thereby continuously reducing the photon's energy level.toward (but never attaining) zero.

Are we together?

 

[expat_panama]

...your image seems to be coning at its outer limit - continue that cone where its angular trajectory (finite angle) wraps back in the form of a loop ...

If we follow the thread's title beginning as "The Laws of Nature existed before space and time", then we want to talk about how 'space and time' began --namely w/ the BB. There are lots of pictures we can use ( big bang science - Google Search ) and all I'd want is to know which one we're using here.

 

[ding]

...The natural law that I am talking about is the conservation of energy.

Ofcourse the "C.O.E." doctrine fell out of favor a hundred years ago w/ the understanding that energy and matter are interchangeable, so maybe we're talking about a kind of conservation of 'matter/energy', although most matter/energy in known space is plasma --our matter/energy soup. What we know now is that the vast majority of the universe's matter is dark matter and most energy seems to be 'dark energy' which is a kind of negative gravity but I digress.

...The net energy of the universe is zero as the positive force of matter is perfectly balanced by the negative force of gravity which is a result of the matter. The net energy of the universe has always and will always be zero...

Please tell me which "universe" we're talking about.

Usually we consider all space and everything in it that's physically observable. Then let's consider that w/ space expanding, the departure speed of most distant masses exceed the speed of light and cease to be in our universe. This in turn says that eventually 'our' universe may end up going down to its last photon sitting all by itself, and its wavelength will continue to lengthen w/ space thereby continuously reducing the photon's energy level.toward (but never attaining) zero.

Are we together?

Yes, the COE does cover both matter and energy. When I use one for convenience it means both. I am talking about the universe we live in. We can only know what is in this "box." We are together if you are talking about thermal equilibrium, yes. I don't know what the final temperature is but I assume it is something greater than absolute aero.

 

[BreezeWood]

...your image seems to be coning at its outer limit - continue that cone where its angular trajectory (finite angle) wraps back in the form of a loop ...

If we follow the thread's title beginning as "The Laws of Nature existed before space and time", then we want to talk about how 'space and time' began --namely w/ the BB. There are lots of pictures we can use ( big bang science - Google Search ) and all I'd want is to know which one we're using here.

.
The Laws of Nature existed before space and time

If we follow the thread's title beginning as "The Laws of Nature existed before space and time", then we want to talk about how 'space and time' began --namely w/ the BB.

so in either case there is no demarcation of either a beginning or an end.

your "picture", diagram is incomplete as an example, with my initial response above it would require its completion to clarify that time did not start with the moment of Singularity as the universe is likely a perpetual loop.

the laws of nature were most likely the cause for the beginning if there was one but that would include time as a variable whether in existence or not ... the relevance is illusive.

and if the point is the laws of nature were the Almighty before everything else existed that may be possible were that not referring to the makebelieve 4th century figure of the christian religion the OP is known for then that would be a mistaken conclusion.

.

 

[Mudda]

"The Laws of Nature existed before space and time"

Dingbat, you planning on even trying to prove this or what? So far, we've seen nothing.

 

[expat_panama]

...prove this or what? So far, we've seen nothing.

Agreed. All we seem to be getting here is sounding more and more like the global warming arguments --it's true because well, it's true!!!

We're seeing a tremendous lack of understanding of what is the form of science (impressive science degrees, pompous guys in white coats using big words) and the substance of science (a method of inquiry by observing physical reality). The form provides a belief system that backs up what the in crowd says, while the substance is a great tool for dealing w/ our surroundings.

There are observable realities that we can refer to in understanding what is beyond the limits of our universe, but like you say Mudda, this thread just hasn't gone there yet and I'm beginning to doubt it will.

 

[ding]

...prove this or what? So far, we've seen nothing.

Agreed. All we seem to be getting here is sounding more and more like the global warming arguments --it's true because well, it's true!!!

We're seeing a tremendous lack of understanding of what is the form of science (impressive science degrees, pompous guys in white coats using big words) and the substance of science (a method of inquiry by observing physical reality). The form provides a belief system that backs up what the in crowd says, while the substance is a great tool for dealing w/ our surroundings.

There are observable realities that we can refer to in understanding what is beyond the limits of our universe, but like you say Mudda, this thread just hasn't gone there yet and I'm beginning to doubt it will.

It has already been proven. Read the OP. It explains it perfectly. You can't have quantum fluctuations with having laws governing quantum mechanics. Unless of course you believe in magic, right? But hey, don't believe it of you don't want to. No skin off my teeth.

 

[ding]

...prove this or what? So far, we've seen nothing.

Agreed. All we seem to be getting here is sounding more and more like the global warming arguments --it's true because well, it's true!!!

We're seeing a tremendous lack of understanding of what is the form of science (impressive science degrees, pompous guys in white coats using big words) and the substance of science (a method of inquiry by observing physical reality). The form provides a belief system that backs up what the in crowd says, while the substance is a great tool for dealing w/ our surroundings.

There are observable realities that we can refer to in understanding what is beyond the limits of our universe, but like you say Mudda, this thread just hasn't gone there yet and I'm beginning to doubt it will.

Do you know what the difference is between critical theory and critical thinking? Care to guess which one you are doing?

 

[Mudda]

...prove this or what? So far, we've seen nothing.

Agreed. All we seem to be getting here is sounding more and more like the global warming arguments --it's true because well, it's true!!!

We're seeing a tremendous lack of understanding of what is the form of science (impressive science degrees, pompous guys in white coats using big words) and the substance of science (a method of inquiry by observing physical reality). The form provides a belief system that backs up what the in crowd says, while the substance is a great tool for dealing w/ our surroundings.

There are observable realities that we can refer to in understanding what is beyond the limits of our universe, but like you say Mudda, this thread just hasn't gone there yet and I'm beginning to doubt it will.

It has already been proven. Read the OP. It explains it perfectly. You can't have quantum fluctuations with having laws governing quantum mechanics. Unless of course you believe in magic, right? But hey, don't believe it of you don't want to. No skin off my teeth.

You haven't proven anything, certainly not that the laws of nature existed before tha BB. And NOBODY agrees with ANYTHING you say.