• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The universe and the laws

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
As I previously stated... If the laws break down the further we go back...... In my opinion they didn't exist... or at least they didn't apply.

I see that differently.

They break down, yes, but how and why?
They break down because our current model of the universe is split into two and they don't like eachother. There's classical physics / relativity on the one hand and there's quantum physics on the other. And they don't like one another. They are essentially incompatible.

If we "rewind" the universe, we eventually end up at planck time. That's where relativity fails. When people say that "the laws break down", that's what they mean.
If memory serves me right, you end up having to divide by zero if you try to work it out or something similar.

So, to avoid this, likely we need a "unified theory". A model that unifies gravity with the other forces. That unifies relativity with quantum physics.

It's the process of science. It zero's in on the truth.

Same happened in the past.
Newton came with the laws of motion. It worked very well on earth and for simple predictions in our cosmic backyard. Then we poked further and noticed that Newton's model started to fail when dealing with extreme gravity and approaching light speeds.

Along came Einstein who added in relativity. Then it didn't fail anymore and accuracy went up.
Now we are at the next obstacle where our best theory of gravity no longer works.

We await a new Newtonian/Einsteinian moment.


So, they didn't exist or didn't apply you say... perhaps. If they are laws that are dependent on space-time, then sure they didn't exist. But Quantum physics isn't very space-time dependent actually.
And unifying relativity with the quantum world, could very well provide us with a model that not only is independent of space-time, but which also explains what space-time actually is and how it can come about.
 

ppp

Well-Known Member
Because they happened.
That's a big assumption.
For any kind of order (laws) to have happened, that possibility had to be available prior to it happening.
Again, no. 1) You don't have any evidence that there was ever non-order. 2) Laws are not order. Laws are descriptions of behavior. 3) Events happen. Laws are not events. Laws do not happen.
And that means some degree of impossibility had to also be present.
That sentence is nonsense. I do not mean that derisively. I mean that it is literal nonsense. It contains two contradictions. 1) There are not degrees of impossibility. Impossibility means that the probability is exactly zero.. If the probability is anything but zero, then it is not impossible. 2) impossibility means that the situation cannot exist. A situation that cannot exist cannot be 'present'. Impossibility is not an object or event. Stop treating it like one..
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Figured I would just start a thread to get more feedback.

Something(big bang or?) happened before quantum physics or any law(s) existed. To me that says things can happen without laws etc.
How would that be possible?

AND without time.
Time, it is said, stops everything happening at once.
Whatever mechanism started our universe did not have time because time was built into the universe.
So there's somethig to think about.

Forget not having a reason for coming into being, the universe didn't have time either.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Figured I would just start a thread to get more feedback.

Something(big bang or?) happened before quantum physics or any law(s) existed. To me that says things can happen without laws etc.
How would that be possible?


Why would you think something happened before laws existed? it seems to me that the laws and space, time, energy, and matter are all co-existent.

No before any of these.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
When you google does a black hole ever get full..

Its comes up....

"No, in fact they are a result of something being filled too much. Black holes form when a colossal amount of material gets crammed into a tiny space that's much too small for it all to exist at once. When this happens, it collapses into something called a singularity."

So if a colossal amount of material gets crammed into a tiny space creating a singularity, our universe might be from a black hole that expanded.

Can a black hole ever fill up? | Space Facts – Astronomy, the Solar System & Outer Space | All About Space Magazine.

Nope. The type of singularity at a black hole is very different than the type of singularity at the Big Bang.
 

QuestioningMind

Well-Known Member
Figured I would just start a thread to get more feedback.

Something(big bang or?) happened before quantum physics or any law(s) existed. To me that says things can happen without laws etc.
How would that be possible?

Actually, no. It's true that the laws that govern this universe didn't come into existence until the universe began, but it's doesn't mean that there weren't other laws in effect prior. We just have no idea what those laws might have been.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Well, I suppose if we're going back to a time when the universe was nothing but an empty void - no motion, no gravity, no planets or stars, there doesn't appear there would be any occasion for such laws to apply.

What make you think there was “nothing”?

What make you think there was “empty void”?

And please define “nothing” and define “empty void”?

The Big Bang theory proposed neither.

The problems with science illiterate is that they don’t bother to read, to understand or to ask questions, so they often misunderstand the Big Bang model, and then make assumptions and claims that have nothing to do with the current model.

They also misunderstand what “singularity” means (in the context of the Big Bang model), and again wrongly assume it is “nothingness”.

So please define these claims you have made, as they don’t not related to the Big Bang theory.

Also. When I hear or read the word “void” being used, often I think of “space” - the intergalactic space (the “space” between galaxies) that astronomers often observed.

I don’t think of void being the singularity.

Like I have been asking you, how do you define “void”, “nothing”.

Oh, btw.

You’ve claimed there were “no gravity”. I am thinking of one of the fundamental forces or fundamental interactions in science - GRAVITATION.

The other 3 forces being -
  • Strong nuclear force (or Strong Interaction)
  • Weak nuclear force (or Weak Interaction)
  • Electromagnetic force (EM Interaction)

In the current model of Big Bang theory - the ΛCDM (late 1990s) - as well as our understanding of particle physics (eg Standard Model) and the Grand Unified Theory (GUT), and of the Quantum Field Theory (QFT) - the Big Bang theory started with the Planck Epoch (from 0 to “about” 10^-43 seconds).

In this Planck Epoch, the universe was in infinitely hot & dense state, where it is not possible distinguish any of particles (eg bosons, quarks, leptons, etc), because the universe was nothing but plasma, which some physicists would describe as primordial soup.

Also the four forces (gravitation, strong, weak and EM) were unified as single force.

The four fundamental forces are indistinguishable as single unified force.

When the universe began expanding, the universe would be less hot and dense than the period of the Planck Epoch. The next period is called the Grand Unification Epoch (GUE), from 10^-43 to about 10^-36 seconds after the Big Bang.

The expansion in the GUE, the universe dropped to temperature of 10^27 K and energy of 10^15 GeV (or 10^24 eV), cool enough for gravitational force to separate from the unified force, the electronuclear force (EM, weak & strong).

The separation of force from unified force is called “Symmetry Breaking”. Two more Symmetry Breaking would occur in the following epochs:
  • Strong interaction is the next Symmetry Breaking from the electroweak force, occurring during the Electroweak Epoch (10^-36 to 10^-12 seconds after BB); EM & weak nuclear are still unified as electroweak force. The temperature would have to drop to 159 GeV for strong force to separate from unified force.
  • Symmetry Breaking of electroweak force into weak nuclear force and EM force, during the Quark Epoch (10^-12 to 10^-6 seconds after BB). For the last breaking to occur, temperature would have been 1 TeV (or 10^12 eV).
Each successive Symmetry Breakings occurred was the result of the energy drops and temperature drops during these 3 epochs.

To give you some perspective as to the energy for strong force to separate from unified "electronuclear" force of 10^24 eV or 10^15 GeV:
  • Nuclear fission would release energy of about 2 MeV (eg the atomic bomb explosion).
  • Nuclear fusion would release energy of about 17 MeV (eg the first thermonuclear explosion from the H-bomb (hydrogen bomb).
  • Stellar Nucleosynthesis (nuclear fusion at the Sun's core) release about 26.2 MeV.
  • The Sun's surface or Photosphere, has max temperature of 6000 K or 0.517 eV.
To unify EM force and weak nuclear force as a single electroweak force, today, would require energy level of 246 MeV. Even the Sun cannot produce such temperature.

My point is that gravitational force was unified with strong, weak & EM force during the Planck Epoch, so I wouldn't say gravity didn't exist.
 
Last edited:

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
What make you think there was “nothing”?

What make you think there was “empty void”?

Oh, I said I didn't know. I didn't make any claims. You're reading far too much into what I said.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
I'm good with not knowing. Its better than thinking we know when we don't.

Sciences including cosmology is a matter of trial-and-error...so it is a learning processes for the astrophysicists and cosmologists, as it is for us.

Since the discoveries using Hooker Telescope from Mount Wilson, we discovered in 1919 that our Milky Way isn't the only galaxy and the universe is a lot larger than the Milky Way.

Since then, we have been learning more with each new discoveries, and that can only happen as our technology advances.

Even today, it is still a learning process for everyone who are interested in space and the universe.

We are hoping to learn more about the earlier stars and galaxies with James Webb Space Telescope, using more hi-res telescope and near-infrared camera than the Hubble.
 

ameyAtmA

~ ~
Premium Member
But if the laws break down the further we go back...... In my opinion they didn't exist... or at least they didn't apply.

*Absence of mass does not mean the law of gravity does not hold. As soon as there is mass the gravitational force can be measured, but the law of gravity is the law. To me that means gravity is an eternal rule or law or property.

*You cannot say that I take 2 balls of the same or different mass and the LAW of gravity applies in one case and does not apply in the other. Some other forces may cut out or cancel out the resulting gravitational FORCE , but the force had to be there to get cancelled.

*To me there is no such thing as "before" and "after" the big bang. My understanding is that only the visible or manifestable aspect appears and disappears over a very very large scale of time and happens again... not just because I am Hindu, but that is what makes sense to me.

Even considering a bang , the law of gravity was true whether energy turned into mass or not.

Because they are inherent properties in Bramh'. Our discovery of a tip of the iceberg means nothing. Bramh' just is. Causeless.
 
Last edited:
Top