Did the creation of the universe violate the laws of conservation?

[Wuwei]

No, the observations took us there. Based on the physics we have at our disposal. We didn't turn any knob. The knob turned us.

Some galaxies are said to lack dark matter or have very little. It seems the knob has different settings for various galaxies.

 

[para bellum]

No, the observations took us there. Based on the physics we have at our disposal. We didn't turn any knob. The knob turned us.

There is no physics that leads to dark matter or dark energy or cosmic inflation. It comes from cosmology, and nowhere else.

You fail to grasp that this is highly, highly speculative. You cannot give it the same degree of confidence that you can give to say, GR or the standard model of particle physics. Those theories are fully fleshed out, and supported by a huge body of empirical evidence.

And even with that, imo it's more likely that the problem stems from the way GR is being applied, and not some unknown forces or forms of matter.

 

[kyzr]

According to the laws of quantum mechanics a closed universe will spontaneously nucleate and will do so without violating the laws of conservation.

1. Hawking points to the observable fact that subatomic particles will appear and disappear in a vacuum. He proposes that the singularity of the big bang appeared in the same way, without a prior cause.
2. David Albert, a physicist at Columbia, refutes this argument nicely. He points out that the kind of vacuum Hawking talks about is not “nothing”, but is really a quantum field that has its own ‘vacuum energy,’ and is governed by the laws of quantum physics. None of these three things are ‘nothing,’ and so you never see ‘something’ come from ‘nothing.’
3. The subatomic particles that pop in and out of the field are really ‘standing waves’ of the quantum field, the way you can see waves and troughs in the ocean; the particles popping in and out of existence are really the waves and troughs of the quantum field.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Some galaxies are said to lack dark matter or have very little. It seems the knob has different settings for various galaxies.

But we don't turn it. It reveals itself.

But this is a reason, I think, that scientists tend to think it will be explained by something massive. Instead of an inherent property of spacetime.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

1. Hawking points to the observable fact that subatomic particles will appear and disappear in a vacuum. He proposes that the singularity of the big bang appeared in the same way, without a prior cause.
2. David Albert, a physicist at Columbia, refutes this argument nicely. He points out that the kind of vacuum Hawking talks about is not “nothing”, but is really a quantum field that has its own ‘vacuum energy,’ and is governed by the laws of quantum physics. None of these three things are ‘nothing,’ and so you never see ‘something’ come from ‘nothing.’
3. The subatomic particles that pop in and out of the field are really ‘standing waves’ of the quantum field, the way you can see waves and troughs in the ocean; the particles popping in and out of existence are really the waves and troughs of the quantum field.

And maybe that's all the "nothing" that can ever be.

 

[Wuwei]

But we don't turn it. It reveals itself.

But this is a reason, I think, that scientists tend to think it will be explained by something massive. Instead of an inherent property of spacetime.

The need for dark matter and dark energy might be solved as a byproduct of the quantization of gravity. Until then it is unsettled.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The need for dark matter and dark energy might be solved as a byproduct of the quantization of gravity. Until then it is unsettled.

Possibly, yes, of course. But that would raise even more new questions about observations like you described.

Where as a clumpy collection of massive objects would fit better.

 

[ding]

And maybe that's all the "nothing" that can ever be.