Jump to content

Theory of everything of final theory


PrimalMinister

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

We know the universe evolves according to laws, we know the laws are enforced, but we don't know why/how they are enforced.

We don't know that they are enforced. You have provided no justification for this claim. As such, the rest of your argument is irrelevant.

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

But what I do have is interesting, even if you don't see it yet.

What you do have (dividing spacetime into cells) has already been used as the basis of a number of theoretical ideas. Some of which may turn out to be useful. You have several decades of study and work before you reach the same level.

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Maybe the universe did come into being via a big bang as described, I accept I could be wrong.

There is zero evidence that the universe came into being like that. So I don't know why you are so bothered about it.

8 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

What I mean by this is, is that God doesn't roll dice.

Einstein also thought that. He was wrong too. (His scepticism helped drive the proof he was wrong.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Of course we do, thats why we have laws. Throw a ball up, it comes down according to gravity, that law is being enforced, somehow.

So by "enforced" you mean the consistent behaviour described by the law exists?

That is kind of obvious; if the universe did not behave consistently like that then we would not be able to formulate laws to describe it.

So your "enforced" question is really: "why does the universe behave consistently?"

There are several possible answers to this, already. Mainly from philosophy. For example, the anthropic principle says that if the universe did not behave consistently then matter could not exist in a form that allowed life and so we could not be here to ask the question.

There are variations on this, like the concept that there could be multiple universes that have different properties - including some not behaving in a consistent ways that could be described by laws. We obviously live in one that is consistent.

Then there is the suggestion that the universe could have been through multiple iterations "evolving" towards one that is more consistent in its behaviour. And that allows us to be here to ask the question.

So, the question (in a sensible form) has been asked and many answers attempted. 

 

Your vague idea does not answer the question. It just pushes the question back to "why do your cells behave consistently".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Of course we do, thats why we have laws. Throw a ball up, it comes down according to gravity, that law is being enforced, somehow.

Your notion of a law being "enforced" is not a given.  If something about this doesn't make sense, you have to examine whether it's your interpretation of how this all works.

The idea that laws are "enforced" suggests that there is some option to not follow the laws, and that would be incorrect. 

You can trace a lot of the behavior of the universe to symmetries. The symmetry that the laws of nature are the same everywhere is tied in with conservation of momentum. The symmetry that the laws do not change on time is tied to conservation of energy. There's no "enforcement" needed, since there is no option to behave differently.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Strange said:

So by "enforced" you mean the consistent behaviour described by the law exists?

That is kind of obvious; if the universe did not behave consistently like that then we would not be able to formulate laws to describe it.

So your "enforced" question is really: "why does the universe behave consistently?"

There are several possible answers to this, already. Mainly from philosophy. For example, the anthropic principle says that if the universe did not behave consistently then matter could not exist in a form that allowed life and so we could not be here to ask the question.

There are variations on this, like the concept that there could be multiple universes that have different properties - including some not behaving in a consistent ways that could be described by laws. We obviously live in one that is consistent.

Then there is the suggestion that the universe could have been through multiple iterations "evolving" towards one that is more consistent in its behaviour. And that allows us to be here to ask the question.

So, the question (in a sensible form) has been asked and many answers attempted. 

It doesn't matter, the main central logic doesn't change, all the different universes are still based on some law. The problem is you are taking a philosophical approach to the question where I am taking a technical approach. You say I have a problem of infinite regression, but I don't, our current models do. First, I am told reality came into being with the big bang, I was told it was branes knocking together, then no its nothing existed before the big bang, now the universe came out of quantum foam, what did the quantum foam come out of? I assume there is some law underlying it all? To go from no law, to some law is impossible, there has to be some foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

First, I am told reality came into being with the big bang

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THIS.

Why are you unable to accept that you are getting hung up about something for which there is no evidence.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I don't know what sciences story is exactly, all I want to now is what happens, from beginning to end. What is the official story?

There is no "official story".

But we know that universe is expanding from an early hot dense state. Before that, we don't know. The universe may have existed for ever. We don't know. There is no evidence and theory we can apply to that early state of the universe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok...

So that is the offical story? After you said there was none.

You can call it "the official story" if you want. Most people would call it the best supported, and most widely accepted, theory at the moment. There is no "official" body that decides this is the right one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Strange said:

We don't know.

Yes, I know.

On one hand you know, and on the other you don't.

Which one is it?

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

There is no "official" body that decides this is the right one.

Ok, so what is the [whatever] story, from beginning to end?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

We know the universe evolves according to laws, we know the laws are enforced, but we don't know why/how they are enforced.

It seems you have wax in your ears. Laws of nature are not enforced. They are the regularities we see in how nature behaves. 'Laws of nature' are not like human laws, that must be enforced. They are more like the old Greek 'logos': the way nature behaves. An electron is an electron because the ways in which it causally connects to other objects. What do you think, that an electron without laws of nature would decide to increase its mass by 10%, but happily enough the laws of nature are enforced on the electron so it must stick to its mass?

1 hour ago, PrimalMinister said:

Now I may not have *the* solution to a perplexing problem with physics, but I have *a* solution and it could be, there is a chance, that it could be *the* solution. I am intelligent enough to know this.

If you, accidentally, would have a solution, it would just be abstracter levels of laws of nature. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Ok, so what is the [whatever] story, from beginning to end?

Beginning: we don't if there was one. If there was, we don't know what it was.

In between the universe cooled down and expanded. 

The end: What you see around you now.

4 minutes ago, Eise said:

An electron is an electron because the ways in which it causally connects to other objects. What do you think, that an electron without laws of nature would decide to increase its mass by 10%, but happily enough the laws of nature are enforced on the electron so it must stick to its mass?

That is why we get electric shocks: because they are so angry!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

We know the universe evolves according to laws, we know the laws are enforced, but we don't know why/how they are enforced. This is a problem looking for a solution.

The universe is as is, because it is...pure chance and luck. The laws of the universe just are...Why the hell is that so hard to accept? We did not impose the laws of nature as Officials did in Australia to drive on the left side, while in the USA, they decide to drive on the wrong side. :P

Quote

I have studied the facts and the theorys and was encouraged to think for myself.

I also have studied the facts and theories, and observed how they have changed over the eons, as new evidence and improved observations are made, and observe that they align with the current knowledge and observational data we have at this time, and see no reason to stupidly oppose that accepted scenario, just for the sake of opposing.

In essence, I seriously doubt your claim about studying the available facts and theories...more to the point at this time, it appears you are simply being obstinate.

Quote

When phycists say there was no time or space before the big bang, I just cant believe that.

Case in point....You have repeated that nonsense to me twice now, and twice I have said that space and time, as we know them, evolved from t+10-43 seconds.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, beecee said:

just for the sake of opposing

I am not just opposing for the sake it, as it is become clearer, science has no idea what underpins everything. Science hasn't got a clue what is going on, it doesn't know.

1 hour ago, beecee said:

You have repeated that nonsense to me twice now, and twice I have said that space and time, as we know them, evolved from t+10-43 seconds.

Well somebody told me, in this thread, there was no space or time before the big bang. Who do I believe? It doesnt' matter anyway, despite all our knowledge it appear we have no idea how the universe actually works.

This is why I asked for the official story, the authorative answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

science has no idea what underpins everything. Science hasn't got a clue what is going on, it doesn't know.

You have gone full crackpot: “scientists don’t know anything but I have the answer!!1!!!”

19 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is why I asked for the official story, the authorative answer.

You are not really cut out for science. It doesn’t have official stories or final answers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not just opposing for the sake it, as it is become clearer, science has no idea what underpins everything. Science hasn't got a clue what is going on, it doesn't know.

You should study the Big Bang Theory, which is based on a painstakingly thorough mathematical model called Lambda Cold Dark Matter. Then make the claim that "science hasn't got a clue what is going on". The fact that you could make this statement tells us all you don't know what you're criticizing.

42 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

Well somebody told me, in this thread, there was no space or time before the big bang. Who do I believe? It doesnt' matter anyway, despite all our knowledge it appear we have no idea how the universe actually works.

What the model and the theory tell us, working backwards, is that the universe was much smaller, hotter, and denser but suddenly expanded and cooled. The model spends all its power detailing what happened just after that rapid expansion, but our skills can only take us back to a fraction of a second AFTER expansion began. So the truth is we can't know if the moment before expansion was the beginning of space and time, The energies and geometries at the exact moment of expansion are beyond our present ability to fathom. So the point is, anyone who talks about "before the big bang" is guessing. But we know TONS about what happened after.

42 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

This is why I asked for the official story, the authorative answer.

And you've been told. The best supported explanation to the evolution of the universe is the BBT/LCDM model. You should study it before criticizing it. That's a bit like reviewing a book without reading it, based on the fact that you can't make out what the cover is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

I am not just opposing for the sake it, as it is become clearer, science has no idea what underpins everything. Science hasn't got a clue what is going on, it doesn't know.

The only one without any clue is yourself. And even if you are not opposing it for opposition sake, you still have nothing more then unsupported, unevidenced, nonsense, that I would not even call a hypothetical.

Quote

Well somebody told me, in this thread, there was no space or time before the big bang. Who do I believe? It doesnt' matter anyway, despite all our knowledge it appear we have no idea how the universe actually works.

Being obtuse again? Correct, there was no space and time before the BB, as we know them, or if you like, as far as we know and in line with current knowledge and theory.

 

Quote

This is why I asked for the official story, the authorative answer.

As I said, go back and start at the beginning, including what constitutes a scientific theory as guided by the scientific method. The BB gives us a reasonable picture of how the universe evolved from a hotter, denser state, from t+10-43 seconds, not how it began. It is a scientific theory, based on current knowledge and observation, the highest accolade other then perhaps a law, that can be called science.

Edited by beecee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, PrimalMinister said:

as it is become clearer, science has no idea what underpins everything.

Of course we do.

It is all standing on a giant tortoise.

 

Moderators, why can't we have a proper winking smiley please?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

No, it is a framework for a theory of everything, not a theory of everything.

I dare to say that there's plenty of work left before there's a framework in place.

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

I have my own ideas about the universe and believe (I could be wrong) that I have read the mind of God.

Nothing wrong with that, but can you provide some details about what you did see during that mind-reading? Something that would explain how universe is designed and how big bang theory is wrong?

 

8 hours ago, PrimalMinister said:

That is my own personal belief, I can't prove it at this stage.

Ok, I follow this thread since I'm actually quite interested in alternative ideas but without any scientific evidence, and addition of some kind of religious-looking framework, my interest quickly goes away.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.