King's Indian

Hi, Bob!

Thanks for that. I agree with your point on worship, too. I think you can even be properly awed by science, without having to bring in ideas of "worship": perhaps because the latter seems to me to have an aspect of unquestioned (and unearned) authority about it. Nothing wrong with the "A" word, until one starts taking it for granted.
Please don't feel you have to signpost plays on words, by the way. I can detect them with a sensitivity measured in ppm*.
I always wonder whether a truly comprehensive TOE will have to take into account, and explain, the fact that matter can be organized into entities that are able to come up with such theories**.

Take care,

KI.

*Puns per million, obviously.
** And will it incorporate the explanation of the explanation, now I recall the name of this thread.

Beer God

While many here seem to be trying to explain causality though the 1st law of thermodynamics, stating that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and so on, as another person pointed out, that the 2nd law of thermodynamics basically says the first law of thermodynamics is wrong. The universe is a closed system after all, unless you think some outside force external to the universe is adding energy to it, and then it would be an open system. Although science would regard the universe as the ultimate closed system.

Defiant Heretic

Astrophysicists fully expect that to happen. They think the universe has only existed in its present form for 15 billion years or so.

Torben

Bob K, I don't think you're right here. Meaning you seemingly fail to consider the implications of the creation of the laws of physics. As I understand it, Big Bang is being defined as a singularity, not subject to the physical laws as these were a result of Big Bang. These laws have apparently been governing the progress of the universe since, but there's nothing divine about them (except from their being true); they might as well have been something else, some other value.

It seems you try to apply chess rules to a football game (or a game without rules ).

Torben

Bob K

Torben:

Why does anyone think the laws of physics ever were created?

That's religious mysticism.

The indestructibility of matter/energy was, is and always will be, and therefore never was created, therefore the laws that govern its indestructibility were, are, and always willbe.

No creation herein.

Not even in a singularity.

Instead of thinking in terms of the concept of laws, some of which are man-made, as in legal systems, think in terms of the concept of natural relationships, which are clearly not man-made, and which are cause-and-effect relationships, causality, and the natural relationships of the universe become a little easier to understand and conceptualize.

N religion needed herein.

No gods, either.

Torben

Originally posted by Bob K
Torben:

Why does anyone think the laws of physics ever were created?

That's religious mysticism.

Not necessarily. Many physicists seem to think som without need for religion. The expansion of the universe indicates a starting point before which, scientists claim, there were no time nor space. Thus, time, matter and space emerged and with these 'laws' derived from properties of the same.

Do you btw contend the expansion of the universe. If yes, why, if no what do you think of this starting point?


Originally posted by Bob K
The indestructibility of matter/energy was, is and always will be, and therefore never was created, therefore the laws that govern its indestructibility were, are, and always willbe.

By our natural laws, yes. In a scenario where the universe has a beginning, not necessarily. In a static, non-expanding universe, you might be able to convince me, but not with an expanding one. Also, IMO the second law of thermodynamics indicates a starting point, namely when entropy was 0. If entropy always increases, what was before S=0?


Originally posted by Bob K
Not even in a singularity.

Any supporting evidence to that claim?


Originally posted by Bob K
N religion needed herein.

No gods, either.

I'd prefer it without, thank you very much

Torben

eh

Torben,

The notion of the universe literally springing into existence at the big bang comes from applying classic physics to the entire universe 13.7 billion years ago - including things in the quantum realm. When that happens, you tend to get nonsensical answers about t=0. Consider the singularity - an infinite amount of density contained in a point of zero volume. Such an absurdity comes from the math, but I doubt many physicists seriously believe singularities exist in the real world.

A quantum theory of gravity will be needed to give us a more realistic idea of what happened when we run the clock back on the expansion of the universe. Even today though, there is no way to be sure the big bang involves the entire universe. Certain inflation models allow for our entire visible universe to have been a creation from the vacuum, while space-time as a whole may have been around forever.

VivaHedone

Infintite regression, in the from of the cyclic Big-Bang-Big-Crunch theory (is there a proper philisophical name for this?), is the only way that we can begin to satisfactorarily explain life. Life is amazing, and on the face of it, seems highly improbable. However, if all the matter in the Universe has been jumbled up an infinite number of times, then as long as the chances of life are at least one-in-infinity, life was bound to occur at some pont.

Bob K

Torben:

By 'religion' I meant not the "I-Believe-Gods-Exist" type but the analogy of belief in physics mysticisms [such as the belief that the natural relationships among things/events comprised of matter/energy were created instead of existing forever into the past and into the future] to religious mysticisms [such as the existence of gods, the necessity for gods to die/resurrect to 'save' mankind from the 'sin' that the gods must have known humans would commitc etc.].

If the expansion of the universe is based upon Hubble's theories, which are based upon redshifts of light, then, no. I suspect that light from a distant source traveling through force fields is likely to be affected by the force fields, which are hardly likely to blueshift light passing through them, but, instead, are likely to redshift such light passing through.

Also, where the speed of light is not affected by the motion of its source its frequency is. Light emitted ahead of the direction of the source is blueshifted; light emitted behind the direction of the source is redshifted. There is, thus, a relationships between the motion of the source and the blueshift/redshift phenomena, which, in turn suggests a crowding effect which causes the blueshift ahead and a de-crowding effect which creates the redshift behind.

I wonder if or not there is a general de-crowding effect that redshifts light regardless of the motion of the source. Light emitted in a spherical pattern from a source, which would be consistent with a wave interpretation of light, might automatically de-crowd itself, a thinning effect caused by the expansion of the light sphere.

No doubt one of the religions of physics complains this is not true, but can anyone prove it is false thus far?

Any scenario which includes a belief/theory that the universe has a beginning fails because of the fact that the space/time/physics [matter/energy] which comprise the universe are infinite in duration in time and presence in space, as I demonstrated in previous Posts/Replies, which theory is called Operational Physics, and therefore cannot have a creation from nothing as would be required for any concepts and principles related to beginnings. And with beginnings we are faced with endings, which is also impossible under the Theory of Operational Physics, or TOP, or Operational Physics Theory, or OPT.

OPT defines what is time--time is the use of invariable time-intervals for the measurement of the occurrences of events in sequences of events--and proves time, when measured by invariable time-intervals, is infinite in duration, having no beginning nor ending. This separates time from space in refutation of relativity when relativity is based upon variable time-intervals.

OPT then defines what is space--the unbounded place wherein exist time and physics--which is infinite in dimensions, having no limit to measurement of its dimensions, and is infinite in duration in time, having no beginning nor ending, and which would be a pure vacuum if not for the presence of physics, matter/energy.

OPT then defines physics, matter/energy, to be indestructible in accord with the first law of thermodynamics and E = mc2 and m = E/c2 and therefore infinite in duration in time and presence in space, having no beginning nor ending.

Premise #1: The sum total of matter/energy in a closed physical system, defined as a system of matter/energy from which matter/energy cannot be transferred and into which matter/energy cannot be transferred, is a constant, a finite number, a finity.

Premise #2: If the matter/energy, the physics, of the universe is an open system, to where could its matter/energy be transferred and from where could new matter/energy be added? Nowhere!

Conclusion: Therefore, the matter/energy of the universe is a closed system, therefore a sum total, a constant number, a finite number, a finity of quantity while an infinity of duration.

Premise #1: The matter/energy of the universe is a closed system, therefore a sum total, a constant number, a finite number, a finity of quantity while an infinity of duration.

Premise #2: You cannot expand infinity a finite quantity of matter/energy into an infinite volume of space without limit to the quantity of matter/energy present in given locations within space [the conclusion of the previous logical argument].

Conclusion: Therefore, there exist areas of of the infinite volume of space which are pure vacuums because of the nonpresence of matter/energy while there exist other areas which are not pure vacuums because of the presence of matter/energy.

NOTE: Matter/energy creates and therefore includes force fields, thus pure vacuums, defined as the nonpresence of matter/energy of any kind as well as the nonpresence of force fields, have no force fields within them.

The volume of the universe itself being space, pure nothing of infinite dimensions, cannot be created/caused, therefore space exists without beginning/end, and cannot be expanded. To speak of the expansion of an infinite volume of pure nothing/a pure vacuum is meaningless mysticism which, when physicists speak of it as fact, proves there is a physics mysticism akin to religious mysticism.

Physics, matter/energy, being infinite in duration but finite in quantity, cannot be expanded as new matter/energy created from nothing, from the pure vacuum which is space.

Physics, matter/energy, can be expanded spatially, the distance between physical things/events increasing, and the quantity of matter/energy thinning out in the volume of space defined by the presence of matter/energy without the quantity of matter/energy changing from the sum total constant.

Matter/energy is one or the other of these two mutually exclusive possibilities: (A) Clumped into one area of space, beyond which there is no matter/energy, which means the space beyond the clumped matter/energy is a pure vacuum; (B) Clumped into many areas of space, between which space is a pure vacuum.

BTW, infinity is not a constant number. A constant number is a finite number which does not change for any reason. If you do not believe this, then give us the name of the number, the quantity, which is infinity, to which I will simply create the next higher quantity as (Infinity + 1) and we can chase each other throughout the duration in time and space of our lives with no end to (Infinity + n) where n = the last number, n, of a series.

Plasma physics suggests that there are constant energy flows within the plasmas that exist in space that prevent the increase in entropy necessary for a heat death of the matter/energy of the universe. Life, itself, stands as an example of an increasingly efficient utilization of energy. [See The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner.]

Matter/energy, being finite in quantity although infinite in duration, has dimensions, therefore a singularity, which theoretically has no dimensions, is a nonsense term which is one of the mysticisms of various physics religions.

Do you know of any credible physicists who believe singularities actually exist in contrast to being unproven concepts with their related unproven principles in the intuitions of physicists and therefore as concepts/principles--mysticisms--in various physics religions? [See eh's comments below.]

The concept of a singularity is a concept that does not fit physics, because matter/energy has dimensions and cannot be squeezed into a non-dimensional state, therefore any mathematics which theoretically proves singularities exist, have to exist, etc., do not fit the physics and are invalid.

OPT/TOP requires matter/energy, being a constant in quantity, to have dimensions, the occupation of a measurable volume of space [remember, space itself, being infinite in volume, is dimensionless, there being no edge to space].

I assume you got the humor therein.

eh:OPT/TOP shows the universe to be a combination of three realities, space, time and physics [matter/energy].

Where space would be a pure vacuum in those areas which have no matter/energy present, no force fields resulting from/caused by matter/energy, matter/energy cannot have been caused by a vacuum.

Something does not come from nothing; something only comes from something, that something being matter/energy, with the sum total of matter energy being a constant, because the matter/energy of the universe, the matter/energy present in space either as one clump or as multiple clumps with a vacuum between them, is a closed system, a finite quantity, whatever it is.

VivaHedone:If there are natural relationships between/among things/events who/which are comprised of matter/energy from which life could happen, then life, being a more effective utilization of energy, being a 'natural' part of the matter/energy of the universe is not quite so amazing as being not quite so improbable.

I do not agree that the Yo-Yo Theory of the Universe [cycles of Bangs<->Crunches] is the only explanation of life.

Ions, atoms either deficient in electrons or bloated with excessive electrons, are unstable because of their imbalance of electrons and protons and thereby cause motion, movement, as they attempt [without being conscious, without having consciousness] to either gain electrons or get rid of electrons.

Ions cause plasmas, gasses of ions, and within plasmas are to be found energy flows, which tend to increase in sizes and velocity, and which contradict the entropical heat death of the universe [quick! why hasn't the universe died from lack of heat!?!?!].

[See The Big Bang Never Happened by Eric Lerner.]

Atoms which are ions can form molecules which are unstable, lacking a balance of electrons and protons within their atomic structures. Molecules can form cells, and cells can form organs and organisms. Life utilizes energy in increasing complexity and efficiency contra entropy, order from chaos, by per the theories of Ilya Prigogine [his book, Order From Chaos] and others.

eh

Modern physics shows those 3 realities to be the same thing. They are not seperate. You cannot have matter/energy without space, and you cannot have time without energy. The picture of the universe from modern physics is about fields, not matter with independant existence moving about in a void.

A classic vacuum can be defined as perfectly flat space. But in quantum mechanics, this is impossible. As such there is always a small amount of energy (curvature) present, even in what we would think is a perfect vacuum. The classic vacuum does not exist in this universe.

In modern physics, the vacuum is something. And while energy is conserved, energy density is not. If you could take a region with X
amount of energy and stretch it out so that the volume doubled, you would still have the same amount of energy that you started with. But now the average density of the region has decreased to accomodate the extra volume. There is no problem for an expanding universe from the conservation law.