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

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.

"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

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.

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

..

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.

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

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.

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.

"Magnus Nyborg" wrote in message
...

"Paul R. Mays" wrote in message
...
[...]
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....

Amen to that! We may not see it now, nor do we seem to be able to
understand
it (yet), but history goes to show that very few things remain
invariant
when viewed up close. The constants mentioned above probably are
constant
(within measurements) for much of the observable universe, perhaps
for most
of it, but the results should be questioned at all time. Only then
can the
"constants" be deemed scientifical.

It is my unscientific belief that "Assumtion is the mother of all
****ups"...

Well, in your "unscientific" opinion can you tell us one instance of
the speed of light being far enough off to render C invalid? Or any
other constant that is used in science?

In that case one might consider this whole thread contributing
something to science other than rambling?

The contention so far by Mays is merely whining since he couldn't
supply an instance. Instead he throws out some terms like Plank, G,
etc.. but he didn't actually show ANY of them to be false. They
appear constant on our scale? He didn't even define what he means by
scale, much less what other scales they wouldn't appear constants on,
or why it matter what scale you use.. after all Planck seems to be
constant on the SMALLEST possible scale all the way up to our scale
which is quite a range... why on earth would it change at a larger
scale???