The laws of nature existed before space and time

[ding]

Did the creation of the universe violate the law of conservation? Or was the creation of the universe according to the law of conversation?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Do you even know what the evidence is that I presented?

If the creation of the universe wasn't according to any laws of nature, then how did it even happen?

I have no idea! Maybe it didn't happen at all!

 

[ding]

I have no idea! Maybe it didn't happen at all!

Didn't you make a post the other day saying the net energy of the universe was zero?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Didn't you make a post the other day saying the net energy of the universe was zero?

I said it appears likely, yes. You asserted it as fact. I'm not sure we are there yet.

Thanks for asking?

 

[ding]

I said it appears likely, yes. You asserted it as fact. I'm not sure we are there yet.

Thanks for asking?

And what was YOUR reason for saying the net energy of the universe is likely zero?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

And what was your basis for saying the net energy of the universe is zero?

And the interrogation is over.

I don't play the troll interrogation game. You know that.

 

[ding]

And the interrogation is over.

I don't play the troll interrogation game. You know that.

The reason you said the net energy of the universe is zero is because I convinced you the creation of the universe did not violate the law of conservation.

 

[ding]

And the interrogation is over.

I don't play the troll interrogation game. You know that.

You can't state the reason you said something? Do you usually say random things that have no basis in fact or reason?

 

[ding]

You asserted it as fact. I'm not sure we are there yet.

Actually you stated that in response to my telling you that the CMB was the equivalent radiation of 2 billion times the matter of the universe. And that is a fact.

 

[ding]

I don't play the troll interrogation game. You know that.

I'm not the one trolling. You are. The proof is you not stating the reason you believe the net energy of the universe is likely zero. You know why you said it. You said it because I taught you that. And now you don't want to admit it because it proves the universe was created according to the law of conservation.

 

[ding]

The most important thing today is that you guys learn that...

1. The CMB is the radiation from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
2. That the radiation of the CMB is equivalent to 2 billion times the matter of the universe.
3. That the CMB was created from paired particle production.
4. That there is no other explanation for such a huge amount of radiation.
5. That the existence of the CMB confirms the universe was created from a chain reaction of a paired production quantum tunneling event.
6. The creation of the universe did not violate the law of conservation of mass or energy.
7. And that the law of conservation and quantum mechanics existed before space and time itself.

Say it with me para bellum , ReinyDays and Fort Fun Indiana

 

[para bellum]

The evidence says otherwise. What evidence do you have that there were no laws of nature governing the creation of the universe? If there were no laws of nature in place what governed the creation of the universe?

I do not make the claim that there were no laws governing the creation of the universe. I am saying physics cannot tell us what they were.

You have failed to prove your central assertion, that the laws of physics precede the creation of space and time. All you have done is declare that it must be so.

You have not explained what happened to the missing anti-matter if the universe arose spontaneously from pair production, and you do not acknowledge that GR yields a universe of infinite temperature and density at the BB event. You further do not acknowledge that particles cannot even form during the planck epoch.

You cannot explain inflation, dark matter, or dark energy or the laws that govern their behavior.

Declaring something must be so does not make it so. You have given me no reason to think that the laws of physics that governed the Big Bang are the same laws that we know today. I have already shown that (according to the standard model of cosmology) the forces that are responsible for the laws of physics (as we know them today) decoupled after the Big Bang event itself.

 

[ding]

I do not make the claim that there were no laws governing the creation of the universe. I am saying physics cannot tell us what they were.

You mean besides the laws of conservation and quantum mechanics.

 

[ding]

You have failed to prove your central assertion, that the laws of physics precede the creation of space and time. All you have done is declare that it must be so.

Incorrect. The laws of quantum mechanics and conservation. So if those laws existed why wouldn't all of them exist?

 

[ding]

You have not explained what happened to the missing anti-matter if the universe arose spontaneously from pair production, and you do not acknowledge that GR yields a universe of infinite temperature and density at the BB event. You further do not acknowledge that particles cannot even form during the planck epoch.

Don't need to. Besides that's not the question. The question was why weren't there equal amounts of matter and anti matter. But even that does not matter because the laws of nature were proven to exist before space and time because space and time was created according to those laws.

GR is not a law of nature, dummy. It's a mathematical equation that describes how space and time evolve and it has mathematical limits. The limits do not negate the universe being created according to the laws of nature.

Again... it does not matter what formed when, it only matters that the CREATION of the universe was according to the laws of nature. You are describing gaps in our understanding of the very early time AFTER creation. You're being an idiot.

 

[ding]

Declaring something must be so does not make it so. You have given me no reason to think that the laws of physics that governed the Big Bang are the same laws that we know today. I have already shown that (according to the standard model of cosmology) the forces that are responsible for the laws of physics (as we know them today) decoupled after the Big Bang event itself.

Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Proof requires evidence, but not all evidence constitutes proof. Proof is a fact that demonstrates something to be real or true. Evidence is information that might lead one to believe something to be real or true.

The CMB is evidence of a massive paired particle production chain event that proves the universe was created from matter that was not pre-existing.

The evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, special relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

Where is your evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time?

 

[para bellum]

Incorrect. The laws of quantum mechanics and conservation. So if those laws existed why wouldn't all of them exist?

You have not shown that those laws existed before the BB. You simply declare that it was so.

Where is your evidence that the laws of nature did not exist before space and time?

The forces responsible for the laws of physics as we understand them emerged after space and time came into existence. That is all the argument I need, and it's based on the standard model of cosmology.

You are the one making the claim that is contradicted by the standard model, it's up to you to prove it wrong...

 

[ding]

You have not shown that those laws existed before the BB. You simply declare that it was so.

The forces responsible for the laws of physics as we understand them emerged after space and time came into existence. That is all the argument I need, and it's based on the standard model of cosmology.

You are the one making the claim that is contradicted by the standard model, it's up to you to prove it wrong...

I literally provided the evidence for the universe being created in accordance with those laws.

What evidence have you provided? None. The forces emerged when the laws of nature allowed them to emerge, dummy. Just like hydrogen and helium formed when the laws of nature allowed them to form.

I have not contradicted the standard model at all. I am walking you through the evidence.

1. The CMB is the radiation from that gigantic firestorm of mutual annihilation in the Big Bang.
2. That the radiation of the CMB is equivalent to 2 billion times the matter of the universe.
3. That the CMB was created from paired particle production.
4. That there is no other explanation for such a huge amount of radiation.
5. That the existence of the CMB confirms the universe was created from a chain reaction of a paired production quantum tunneling event.
6. The creation of the universe did not violate the law of conservation of mass or energy.
7. And that the law of conservation and quantum mechanics existed before space and time itself.

Say it with me

 

[para bellum]

The evidence of the laws that describe the evolution of space and time (conservation, relativity and quantum mechanics) also describing the creation of the universe is proof that the laws of nature existed before space and time.

That is not proof. There was a Big Bang. From that event, conditions were created that allowed for the creation of matter. As the early universe cooled, the forces that are responsible for the laws of physics emerged. Particles formed, then arranged themselves into hadrons and atoms and molecules, etc. That all happened over a finite time after the Big Bang event happened.

The Big Bang created space and time. Matter, the forces responsible, and all the laws governing it's behavior came along later.

The "laws" themselves are just inventions of ours that describe the behavior of the universe as we see it. It was the way the forces emerged that made the universe the way it is. We have no explanation as the the how or why it happened the way it did- why the forces emerged in the specific order or relative strengths, we just wrote the "laws" to match what we observe.

We have no description of the universe at the instant of the Big Bang. Physics just gives us "singularity" of infinite density and temperature. We can get to about 10^-43s or something, and then it all falls apart.

I do not doubt there is an underlying order that explains the hows and whys, we just haven't figured it out yet.