|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws
and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? I hope that my question is clear. If it isn't please let me know. John Leonard |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
You are ignoring the question. Are the physical laws which govern our
universe necessary or are they an accident of the circumstances of the universe's birth? "Ronald Stepp" wrote in message . .. "John Leonard" wrote in message ... I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? It doesn't really matter if they are an accident, since they're what we are stuck with, and everything from that point on worked fine with them the way they turned out... so it's really a moot point.. if ithadn't turned out that way, we wouldn't be around to worry about it. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
"John Leonard" wrote in message ... I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? I hope that my question is clear. If it isn't please let me know. John Leonard I am an aerospace engineer, not a cosmologist, but my understand is we don't know what the laws of physics were in the early universe, just like our laws breakdown for the singularity of black hole. This isn't to say our current laws don't apply, we simply don't know. Danny Deger |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
Current thinking on the matter is that the universe started at the Big Bang
and then shortly afterwards went through a period of inflation (were talking faster then light inflation), then slowed down to sublight. There is all kinds of speculation that the constants we see today resulted from events in the inflation period and that other parts of our universe may have different constants. No one knows, we don't have a theory of how or when the constants formed yet. Jim John Leonard wrote: You are ignoring the question. Are the physical laws which govern our universe necessary or are they an accident of the circumstances of the universe's birth? "Ronald Stepp" wrote in message . .. "John Leonard" wrote in message ... I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? It doesn't really matter if they are an accident, since they're what we are stuck with, and everything from that point on worked fine with them the way they turned out... so it's really a moot point.. if ithadn't turned out that way, we wouldn't be around to worry about it. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
John Leonard wrote:
I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. There are lots of theories, and many speculations. For most theories and speculations in or not too far from the mainstream, it would be much more accurate to say that the known physical laws and current values of the fundamental constants *could* and for all appearances *did* exist within a second or two of the Big Bang. What was going on before that is unknown, and the subject of much speculation. The difference between the two time periods is not that new physical laws came into existence, nor that the fundamental constants took on new values, but that after the first second or so, currently-known physics is able to describe conditions accurately, as best as can be determined from observations of the Universe as it is now. During the first second, however, conditions *apparently* were so extreme that current physics isn't able to describe them accurately, so something unknown *must* have been going on. If you are asking what was going on at that time, the answer is that it is as yet unknown. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis .. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
On Sun, 13 Jul 2003 00:01:46 +0100, John Leonard wrote:
I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? I hope that my question is clear. If it isn't please let me know. In Multiverse theory there could be an infinite number of Universes each with its own sets of laws. As we do not know what were the initial laws of physics, i.e., the laws that operated at the moment of the big bang and for a short while thereafter, we cannot tell whether the laws of physics that operate now are accidental, random or necessary consequence of those earlier laws. -- Gautam Majumdar |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
Jeff Root wrote:
John Leonard wrote: I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. There are lots of theories, and many speculations. For most theories and speculations in or not too far from the mainstream, it would be much more accurate to say that the known physical laws and current values of the fundamental constants *could* and for all appearances *did* exist within a second or two of the Big Bang. What was going on before that is unknown, and the subject of much speculation. The difference between the two time periods is not that new physical laws came into existence, nor that the fundamental constants took on new values, but that after the first second or so, currently-known physics is able to describe conditions accurately, as best as can be determined from observations of the Universe as it is now. During the first second, however, conditions *apparently* were so extreme that current physics isn't able to describe them accurately, so something unknown *must* have been going on. If you are asking what was going on at that time, the answer is that it is as yet unknown. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis . The timeline, as presented in my classes (along with lots of caveats) is that up to 10^-43 seconds (ten to power -43) after the Big Bang (called the Planck era) understanding the physics would require a combination of quantum theory and GR that eludes us so far. At 10^-43 seconds gravity separated out as a for distinct from the GUT force (described by the Grand Unified Theories) ... a combination of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. At 10^-35 seconds the GUT force separated into the strong force and the electroweak force. This separation occurred as the rapid "inflation" of the universe took place. We have theories that appear to describe conditions during the period from 10^-35 to 10^-10 seconds. At 10^-10 seconds the electroweak force separated into the weak force and the electromagnetic force. At this time the four forces familiar today were all in place and experiments have explored conditions thought to have existed at this time (10^-10 seconds). Some recent experiments claim to have gone into the electroweak force regime but these need much confirmation. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
First..
All physical laws,rules,dogma etc. are but human attempts to define the observed. Someone once said never to mistake the map with the land it portrays.. Every mathematical model , every theory is just humans best attempt at putting into concept the weird and wild universe around us and while they are very good at describing the observed they are still but human constructs. The day may come that a idea never given much thought may very well rewrite all of known science. But the only way we will ever find the cause of the cause of the cause is to understand that we are but a small dot in a vastness of such scale that what is constant to us and our world is not constant except to us. I contend that there are no constants... there are no infinities... that goes for UGC, c, G, Plank,Hubble etc. ... all only appear constant on our scale.... "John Leonard" wrote in message ... I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? I hope that my question is clear. If it isn't please let me know. John Leonard |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
The universe didn't expand "faster than light"...space itself expanded...but
since space (i.e. "nothingness") isn't bound by relativity, no precious laws were broken...in fact, any light which existed at the time (alot) kept up just fine with it...since it was dragged along with the space it was in (as well as everything else that was there too). "Jim Akerlund" wrote in message ... Current thinking on the matter is that the universe started at the Big Bang and then shortly afterwards went through a period of inflation (were talking faster then light inflation), then slowed down to sublight. There is all kinds of speculation that the constants we see today resulted from events in the inflation period and that other parts of our universe may have different constants. No one knows, we don't have a theory of how or when the constants formed yet. Jim John Leonard wrote: You are ignoring the question. Are the physical laws which govern our universe necessary or are they an accident of the circumstances of the universe's birth? "Ronald Stepp" wrote in message . .. "John Leonard" wrote in message ... I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. I have a question about this. If this hypothesis is correct then the appearance, or concretization, of these physical laws which we recognize as such, occurred after some small period of time. (Small when compared to the intervals of time to which we are accustomed). If these so-called 'physical laws' came into being as a result of a physical process which began at the beginning of time, then, could this physical process have occurred differently? In other words, could the physical laws with which we are familiar be an accident? Or are they the necessary consequence of the original state of events from which our universe emerged? It doesn't really matter if they are an accident, since they're what we are stuck with, and everything from that point on worked fine with them the way they turned out... so it's really a moot point.. if ithadn't turned out that way, we wouldn't be around to worry about it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The beginning of the universe.
What you descibe is commonly called "symetry breaking". One thing you should
realize is that all our "laws" and theories are nothing but approximations. Newton's work was one such approximation...it was superseded by Einstein's approximation. At the beginning of time (whatever that means) the laws of physics were alive and well...we just haven't been able to approximate them yet. Someday... "John Oliver" wrote in message ... Jeff Root wrote: John Leonard wrote: I have read that, according to at least one theory, the physical laws and constants with which scientists are familiar came into being shortly after the Big Bang. There are lots of theories, and many speculations. For most theories and speculations in or not too far from the mainstream, it would be much more accurate to say that the known physical laws and current values of the fundamental constants *could* and for all appearances *did* exist within a second or two of the Big Bang. What was going on before that is unknown, and the subject of much speculation. The difference between the two time periods is not that new physical laws came into existence, nor that the fundamental constants took on new values, but that after the first second or so, currently-known physics is able to describe conditions accurately, as best as can be determined from observations of the Universe as it is now. During the first second, however, conditions *apparently* were so extreme that current physics isn't able to describe them accurately, so something unknown *must* have been going on. If you are asking what was going on at that time, the answer is that it is as yet unknown. -- Jeff, in Minneapolis . The timeline, as presented in my classes (along with lots of caveats) is that up to 10^-43 seconds (ten to power -43) after the Big Bang (called the Planck era) understanding the physics would require a combination of quantum theory and GR that eludes us so far. At 10^-43 seconds gravity separated out as a for distinct from the GUT force (described by the Grand Unified Theories) ... a combination of the strong, weak, and electromagnetic forces. At 10^-35 seconds the GUT force separated into the strong force and the electroweak force. This separation occurred as the rapid "inflation" of the universe took place. We have theories that appear to describe conditions during the period from 10^-35 to 10^-10 seconds. At 10^-10 seconds the electroweak force separated into the weak force and the electromagnetic force. At this time the four forces familiar today were all in place and experiments have explored conditions thought to have existed at this time (10^-10 seconds). Some recent experiments claim to have gone into the electroweak force regime but these need much confirmation. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Shuttle | 3 | May 22nd 04 09:07 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Space Station | 0 | May 21st 04 08:02 AM |
Breakthrough in Cosmology | Kazmer Ujvarosy | Policy | 0 | May 21st 04 08:00 AM |
Life and The Universe | lifehealer | History | 8 | February 2nd 04 08:36 PM |
The Gravitational Instability Cosmological Theory on the Formation of the Universe | rev dan izzo | History | 8 | October 9th 03 05:41 PM |