• Welcome to the Internet Infidels Discussion Board.

I have a question about laws of physics

 
 
 
steve_bank said:
My philosophical take is it comes down to conservation and causality.

Unless you posit something fro nothing like Creationism there has to be an initial condition and a spark that starts the BB.

The BB does not start at tine zero and does not explain what led up to the initial conditioj assumed in the theory.


For me the only thing that makes sense is an infinite universe with no beginning or end.
Click to expand...
Then there clearly had to be some kind of phase change near t=0.

Penrose has some kind of cyclical model where the heat death of one universe somehow becomes the inflation of the next. I saw him give a talk on it a few years back once but I admit I didn’t really understand it. It was funny because he was still using had written slides on an overhead projector.
 
steve_bank said:
there has to be an initial condition
Click to expand...
Condition of what? There was no condition of the universe prior to the existence of the universe.
The slate was wiped clean at the point where there was nothing but some kind of plasma.
IMO ($<0.02) whether or not the homogeneous, rapidly expanding ball of stuff referred to by Shadowy Man as a “hot dense state” was the result of some other spacetime continuum, is irrelevant to everything happening in this universe.
If there was a “prior” state of the stuff that condensed into mass and energy, any information it held would be lost within the homogeneous ball of proto-stuff, aka this universe.
 
steve_bank said:
My philosophical take is it comes down to conservation and causality.

Unless you posit something fro nothing like Creationism there has to be an initial condition and a spark that starts the BB.

The BB does not start at tine zero and does not explain what led up to the initial conditioj assumed in the theory.


For me the only thing that makes sense is an infinite universe with no beginning or end.
Click to expand...
You are stuck in the time-bound mode of thought. The universe does not require a cause, because causes are things that happen in time. The existence/expansion of the universe and time, are events that are bound together. Neither exists without the other.
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
 
DBT said:
Maybe the plasma, lepton soup, or whatever, itself has initial conditions, inherent properties that determine the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
What makes it “ initial”?
I understand that it is thought that our current laws of physics “could have been” quite different, and have heard it asserted that what we ended up with is just a random one of a monster number of kinds of “physicses” that could have emerged from the soup. But the cause of the soup has never been satisfied except by the rebounding model afaik, which defies the observed increase in acceleration of universal expansion.
 
Elixir said:
DBT said:
Maybe the plasma, lepton soup, or whatever, itself has initial conditions, inherent properties that determine the laws of physics?
Click to expand...
What makes it “ initial”?
I understand that it is thought that our current laws of physics “could have been” quite different, and have heard it asserted that what we ended up with is just a random one of a monster number of kinds of “physicses” that could have emerged from the soup. But the cause of the soup has never been satisfied except by the rebounding model afaik, which defies the observed increase in acceleration of universal expansion.
Click to expand...

Who knows. ''Initial'' as in inflation happened. The nature of whatever brought - whatever ''it'' is - it about or triggered inflation.
 
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Nope. See above.

Creationism is invalid because it proposes that everything came from God, which is incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
We have the examples from physics of very small scale "something from nothing", but I am talking of the large scale. Creationists claim God created the universe, but also that it created it from nothing. Of course they are unable to explain where their god came from (nothing apparently) nor its necessity.
 
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Nope. See above.

Creationism is invalid because it proposes that everything came from God, which is incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
We have the examples from physics of very small scale "something from nothing", but I am talking of the large scale.
Click to expand...
What, larger than "the universe"?
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationists claim God created the universe, but also that it created it from nothing. Of course they are unable to explain where their god came from (nothing apparently) nor its necessity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I just said - incoherent and/or circular.
 
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
steve_bank said:
My philosophical take is it comes down to conservation and causality.

Unless you posit something fro nothing like Creationism there has to be an initial condition and a spark that starts the BB.

The BB does not start at tine zero and does not explain what led up to the initial conditioj assumed in the theory.


For me the only thing that makes sense is an infinite universe with no beginning or end.
Click to expand...
You are stuck in the time-bound mode of thought. The universe does not require a cause, because causes are things that happen in time. The existence/expansion of the universe and time, are events that are bound together. Neither exists without the other.
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Time in seconds is a clock used to measure rate of change. Meters is a measure of distance.

Space-Time is (x,y,z,t)

But that is what I aid. An infinite universe with no beginning and end has no cause, or 'prime mover'.

The theory ha to have a starting point, IOW the initial conditions. I assume they extrapolated back in time as far a they could theoretically. That was the hot dense soup.
 
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Nope. See above.

Creationism is invalid because it proposes that everything came from God, which is incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
We have the examples from physics of very small scale "something from nothing", but I am talking of the large scale. Creationists claim God created the universe, but also that it created it from nothing. Of course they are unable to explain where their god came from (nothing apparently) nor its necessity.
Click to expand...
Tat I believe is a mistinterpretaion. Soethng from nothing.
 
Elixir said:
steve_bank said:
there has to be an initial condition
Click to expand...
Condition of what? There was no condition of the universe prior to the existence of the universe.
The slate was wiped clean at the point where there was nothing but some kind of plasma.
IMO ($<0.02) whether or not the homogeneous, rapidly expanding ball of stuff referred to by Shadowy Man as a “hot dense state” was the result of some other spacetime continuum, is irrelevant to everything happening in this universe.
If there was a “prior” state of the stuff that condensed into mass and energy, any information it held would be lost within the homogeneous ball of proto-stuff, aka this universe.
Click to expand...
It is all theretical.

By initial conitions I mean as in a solvng a differntial equation.
s = distance
change in tie is dt
velocity is ds/dt

distance(t) = ʃ ds/dt + C

Where C is the initial condition, the initial distance from a starting point.

In a mathematical simulation of he BB the variables have to be initialized to a state.

Temremature, density, particle energy and so on.
 
Shadowy Man said:
steve_bank said:
My philosophical take is it comes down to conservation and causality.

Unless you posit something fro nothing like Creationism there has to be an initial condition and a spark that starts the BB.

The BB does not start at tine zero and does not explain what led up to the initial conditioj assumed in the theory.


For me the only thing that makes sense is an infinite universe with no beginning or end.
Click to expand...
Then there clearly had to be some kind of phase change near t=0.

Penrose has some kind of cyclical model where the heat death of one universe somehow becomes the inflation of the next. I saw him give a talk on it a few years back once but I admit I didn’t really understand it. It was funny because he was still using had written slides on an overhead projector.
Click to expand...
Imaginative solutions. The BB theory is a work of art from one point of view.
 
DBT said:
''Initial'' as in inflation happened.
Click to expand...
It’s still happening.
Maybe expansion/inflation is all that ever happens in any universe bubble - they come out of a quantum void and just expand until they suffer heat death.

We are (our universe is) like a methane bubble rising from the bottom of a seven-dimensional ocean, expanding as we rise, and when we get to the surface of that ocean the bubble will pop.
 
steve_bank said:
By initial conitions I mean as in a solvng a differntial equation.
s = distance
change in tie is dt
velocity is ds/dt

distance(t) = ʃ ds/dt + C
Click to expand...
s=0, dt=0 if there is only a theoretical singularity or a “hot dense state”. All your equations are zeroed out in a universe that is totally homogeneous. Physics breaks down if the current state is regressed that far. Time, distance, velocities are not just irrelevant, they don’t exist in that situation.
I wanted to say in that “moment” but there wouldn’t be moments, as there would be nothing to define them. No motion, no velocities, no time, no “distances”. In order for those phenomena to be realized, the plasmic state would have to cool, condense and form “locations” featuring differentiated conditions.
 
In any physical system there is no way to divide by zero in an along or digital circuit.

In any physical system as dt --> 0 energy demand or a variable tries to go to infinity. In some cases it cases cause something to physically blow up. In a speed control system for a rotating machiner if a singularity occurs the achine can speed up until it cones apart.

In a car as ds/tdt goes to zero energy demand goes to infinity. In a digital circuit as dt is reduced to make it faster it takes more energy.

Nothing happens in zero time. That cviolates C and causalityy. Effect can not propagate faster thnan speed of light.

Tap on one end of a metal rod and the effect, a compression wave, can not propagate faster than C.

What I was saying is that in a inverse with no beginning or end time can not be tine zero in the BB,. meaning the beginning of everything.

So, as they worked back in time they could bot go back to affinity. My guess is wne tey rechd the hot dense soup they may have reached a dead end.

So you can imagine the initial conditions winked into existence from noting,a god did it, or say the BB is a theory that predicts our observable universe from a theoretical initial condition not the Uncovers in all it is seen or unseen.

You are out on the Salt lats. A car is 100 meters away. The car moves away in a straight line. 100 meters is the initial condition of distance relative to your position in the differential equation.

In this case the IC can be negate, zero, or positive.
 
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Nope. See above.

Creationism is invalid because it proposes that everything came from God, which is incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
We have the examples from physics of very small scale "something from nothing", but I am talking of the large scale.
Click to expand...
What, larger than "the universe"?
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationists claim God created the universe, but also that it created it from nothing. Of course they are unable to explain where their god came from (nothing apparently) nor its necessity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I just said - incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
By "large scale" I mean in terms of the energy, such as that of the Big Bang.
 
A well known book on basic technical math and calculus is an oldie

Basic Technical Mathematics With Calculus by Alan J Washington.

Basic callus and differential equations with app;vocations. Not a theoretical dissertation.

Used copies and there may be free PDFs.
 
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
bilby said:
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationism is invalid because it proposes that something came from nothing, which is impossible.
Click to expand...
Nope. See above.

Creationism is invalid because it proposes that everything came from God, which is incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
We have the examples from physics of very small scale "something from nothing", but I am talking of the large scale.
Click to expand...
What, larger than "the universe"?
Spacetime Inhabitant said:
Creationists claim God created the universe, but also that it created it from nothing. Of course they are unable to explain where their god came from (nothing apparently) nor its necessity.
Click to expand...
Yeah, that's what I just said - incoherent and/or circular.
Click to expand...
By "large scale" I mean in terms of the energy, such as that of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's what I mean too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom