Donald Hamilton wrote:
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...

Donald Hamilton wrote:

(Bilge) wrote in message ...


Donald Hamilton:

Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?


No. In particular, prior to about 10^-14 seconds following the
big bang there were just two forces, gravity and the fields in
which the strong, weak and EM interactions were a single force.
At that point there were no massive particles. Following that,
there were still no massive particles until the electroweak
symmetry was broken, generating the quark and lepton masses along
with the weak and electromagnetic force. This all happened
prior to the first nsec. It was too hot for chemistry until
the universe was about 500,000 years old. A book which gives
a pretty good account of all of this is ``The First Three Minutes'',
Weinberg, Steven.


Since the BB was a physical event there must have been some physical
laws in place before, for the event to occur - don't you think.

Not necessarily - if there was no "before"...

And even if there were any laws - why on earth should they have been
the inertia, gravity, EM, chemistry etc. which we know?


Bye,
Bjoern


Do you think the "laws of nature" change over time?

E.g. before the electroweak phase transition, the nature behaved
quite different than it does today.


I'm talking about
the laws not the conditions. It would have been a very different
universe without inertia, gravity & electromagnetic energy to guide
matter.

Yes, indeed.


Bye,
Bjoern

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...
Donald Hamilton wrote:
Do you think the "laws of nature" change over time? I'm talking about
the laws not the conditions. It would have been a very different
universe without inertia, gravity & electromagnetic energy to guide
matter.

See -The Life of the Cosmos- by Lee Smolin. He conjectures that the
kosmos is evolving and that the "laws of physics" change over time.

Bob Kolker

My idea of the "physical laws of nature" are - it is the framework of
the universe that creates and guides all matter and energy. It is the
timeless, invariant phenomena that creates space and gives the
universe its personality.

Donald Hamilton wrote:
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message ...

Donald Hamilton wrote:

Do you think the "laws of nature" change over time? I'm talking about
the laws not the conditions. It would have been a very different
universe without inertia, gravity & electromagnetic energy to guide
matter.

See -The Life of the Cosmos- by Lee Smolin. He conjectures that the
kosmos is evolving and that the "laws of physics" change over time.

Bob Kolker


My idea of the "physical laws of nature" are - it is the framework of
the universe that creates and guides all matter and energy. It is the
timeless, invariant phenomena that creates space and gives the
universe its personality.

Well, you might consider that these same, unchanging physical laws
might *look* quite differently under different circumstances.

Compare e.g. the time before the electroweak symmetry breaking with
the situation today... One can argue that both are governed by the same
laws - but due to the different circumstances (he different
temperature), the outcome is quite different!


Bye,
Bjoern

Donald Hamilton wrote:


My idea of the "physical laws of nature" are - it is the framework of
the universe that creates and guides all matter and energy. It is the
timeless, invariant phenomena that creates space and gives the
universe its personality.

That is a metaphysical assumption and not a manifest fact given to us
through our perception. You insist on timelessness. Suppose there is
some kind of structure that remains invariant over time. Maybe that is
the unchangable principle you are seeking.

Bob Kolker

"Donald Hamilton" wrote in message
om...
"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...
Donald Hamilton wrote:
Do you think the "laws of nature" change over time? I'm talking about
the laws not the conditions. It would have been a very different
universe without inertia, gravity & electromagnetic energy to guide
matter.

See -The Life of the Cosmos- by Lee Smolin. He conjectures that the
kosmos is evolving and that the "laws of physics" change over time.

Bob Kolker

My idea of the "physical laws of nature" are - it is the framework of
the universe that creates and guides all matter and energy. It is the
timeless, invariant phenomena that creates space and gives the
universe its personality.

Many things in many areas of study are very difficult or even impossible to
define eg in computing no one has ever been able to even define algorithm
properly. What a law of nurture is would seem to be one of those things.
Indeed people I respect, like Steve Carilip, suggest the word law is not
really appropriate to physics; but for historical reasons we are stuck with
it. However just like long acquaintance with writing programs gives one a
feel for what an algorithm is even though it can not be rigorously defined;
the same with the study of physics - if you study enough of it you will get
a feel. That is what I suggest you do rather than try and pin down ideas
like 'physical law' and 'did physical laws exist before the big bang', and
'if they did were they the same as they are now'. Questions like that
actually belong to philosophy. And just like some philosopher who has never
written a program who tries to pin down what an algorithm is will fail,
those that attempt to answer the type of questions posed previously will
also fail unless they study some physics. Since you have shown an interest
in the big bang the following may form a suitable starting point on that
journey - http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level..._contents.html.
Just follow your nose, post here with questions, and in no time at all you
will be on your way. And I think you will find something interesting - once
you understand the ideas those philosophy type questions will seem
unimportant - which IMHO they are (I believe such are really semantic
quibbling - but that is another issue). If they still loom large in your
scheme of things then you will be in a much better position to answer them.

Thanks
Bill

Donald Hamilton:
(Bilge) wrote:
Donald Hamilton:
Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?


No. In particular, prior to about 10^-14 seconds following the
big bang there were just two forces, gravity and the fields in
which the strong, weak and EM interactions were a single force.
At that point there were no massive particles. Following that,
there were still no massive particles until the electroweak
symmetry was broken, generating the quark and lepton masses along
with the weak and electromagnetic force. This all happened
prior to the first nsec. It was too hot for chemistry until
the universe was about 500,000 years old. A book which gives
a pretty good account of all of this is ``The First Three Minutes'',
Weinberg, Steven.

Since the BB was a physical event there must have been some physical
laws in place before, for the event to occur - don't you think.

You might want to read wheeler's ``It From Bit'', for a rather
extreme view of what one might mean by ``some physical laws''.

"Donald Hamilton" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
Donald Hamilton wrote:

(Bilge) wrote in message
...
Donald Hamilton:
Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big
Bang?


No. In particular, prior to about 10^-14 seconds following the
big bang there were just two forces, gravity and the fields in
which the strong, weak and EM interactions were a single force.
At that point there were no massive particles. Following that,
there were still no massive particles until the electroweak
symmetry was broken, generating the quark and lepton masses along
with the weak and electromagnetic force. This all happened
prior to the first nsec. It was too hot for chemistry until
the universe was about 500,000 years old. A book which gives
a pretty good account of all of this is ``The First Three Minutes'',
Weinberg, Steven.

Since the BB was a physical event there must have been some physical
laws in place before, for the event to occur - don't you think.

The big bang is a singularity in non-quantum physics. There
don't have to be any laws in place since the theory predicts
a singularity.

John Anderson

Nothing in the universe can happen without the framework of the
physical laws to guide them. (unless you take a religious position.)

Please tell me how to falsify the statement above? Unless you can do that
then it is really not a testable proposition and is not really the suitable
study of physics. As to what physical laws are you may find the following
of interest - http://www.colorado.edu/philosophy/v...r/nothing.html.

Is a singularity exempt from the laws of nature?

That question assumes a number of things which really belong to philosophy
and are rather nebulous. A much better question to ask is 'Is a singularity
a sensible thing physically?' The answer, based on past experience, is the
appearance of infinites in physical equations has always pointed to areas
whose investigation has lead to advances eg QED is an advance over classical
EM. Notice I did not say such theories are flawed, stupid, silly etc - they
are simply areas that suggest further investigation is necessary. Take for
example the idea of a point charge in EM. The field becomes infinite at the
charge. Does this invalidate EM? - no. Does this suggest some other deeper
theory that resolves the issue may be lurking about - yes (as QED was found
to be and also resolves the issue - but creates others of its own).

Thanks
Bill




donham
http://novan.com

Bill Hobba wrote:


Many things in many areas of study are very difficult or even impossible to
define eg in computing no one has ever been able to even define algorithm
properly.

Not true. There are several definitions of algorithm (at least in regard
to computable functions from the integers to the integers) and they are
all equivalent (Church's Thesis).

Bob Kolker

"robert j. kolker" wrote in message
...


Bill Hobba wrote:


Many things in many areas of study are very difficult or even impossible
to
define eg in computing no one has ever been able to even define
algorithm
properly.

Not true. There are several definitions of algorithm (at least in regard
to computable functions from the integers to the integers) and they are
all equivalent (Church's Thesis).

Bob Kolker

I am not so sure about that -
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Church-TuringThesis.html:

'There are conflicting points of view about the Church-Turing thesis. One
says that it can be proven, and the other says that it serves as a
definition for computation. There has never been a proof, but the evidence
for its validity comes from the fact that every realistic model of
computation, yet discovered, has been shown to be equivalent. If there were
a device which could answer questions beyond those that a Turing machine can
answer, then it would be called a oracle.'

See also
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~mrc/Computa...40Lecture2.pdf.

And even if one accepts the Church-Turing thesis problems still remain - see
http://research.microsoft.com/~gurevich/Opera/164.pdf.:

'And there is more, much more to an algorithm than the function it computes.
The thesis was a great step toward understanding algorithms, but it did not
solve the problem what an algorithm is.'

Basically we still do not really know.

Thanks
Bill

Gerry Quinn wrote:

In article , says...
Donald Hamilton wrote:

Since the BB was a physical event there must have been some physical
laws in place before, for the event to occur - don't you think.

The big bang is a singularity in non-quantum physics. There
don't have to be any laws in place since the theory predicts
a singularity.

Theories that predict singularities need to be replaced by non-broken
theories. After this is done, the range of matters discussable in
available theory extends into (and maybe past) the regions previously
described as singularities.

Some day, likely enough, there will be a consensus on matters pertaining
to the time now referred to as the Big Bang singularity.

Depending on how that theory considers time, it may or may not have
something to say about what happened before.


No problem. But us show/or not such a theory.

Telling us that there may or may not be such a theory
is telling us nothing.

My point in responding to the original poster is
that his question is meaningless in the context
of the theory that predicted the singularity in
the first place.

Next time you want to post, post something
that makes sense, please!

John Anderson