Can the laws of physics bring something into existence?

[Anomalocaris]

I think the question being asked is:

Do the known properties of our universe argue against our full universe having arisen out of something which might be colloquially regarded as having none of the richness of the universe.

The answer is no.

[vodkafan]

On a day to day basis, I don't have to worry whether the universe came from nothing-it obviously did . One day we'll find out why and how.
What I am free from is having the anxious need to imagine a skydaddy doing it just so I can feel safe.

[Freedom of thought]

you have to understand that these laws were not the reason the universe is here. The laws are here because of the universe. Silly people think they are the ones that tell the universe how to be the universe.

Agreed. There are few things more belligerently ignorant than claiming the laws of physics as observed today predate the universe, especially knowing the laws of physics were different at the beginning of the universe in Planck time.

Then how did the universe come to be, if there was absolutely nothing 'preceding' it? I know this is highly speculative conjecture, but regardless... Hawking seems to argue that because of these laws it means a universe can come from absolute nothing without a cause.

[Anomalocaris]

The honest answer is we don't know what proceeded our universe, where our universe is defined as that which we believe much of the aspects of our laws of physics is adaquate for describing. This is precisely because these laws are inadaquate for projecting back beyond some point in time.

What we suspect is there is a more fundamental set of principles from which other aspects of laws of physics can be derived. These fundamental laws would govern explicitly the creation of our universe. Discovering this more fundament set is aim of physics.

As to the claim laws of physics are products of our universe, that is a idiotically useless and uninformative tautology for the purpose of this discussion. So is what created our universe from which we derived our law of physics a part of the greater universe or not? If it is, then laws of physics can certainly transcend what we regard as our universe just as laws of gravitation transcended the solar system.

[ignoramus]

Guys, is it possible for matter/antimatter to join and create nothing?
Or will we always have an energy release in the positive direction.

An analogy along the lines of a compressible zip file where under extreme conditions (which possibly don't conform to those of our universe). Similar to pure BB conditions, it can compress itself to "0".

If any type of exotic matter/energy entity together with its antimatter equivalent "can" ever exist together, even for an immeasurably small amount of time, this combination could be seen to be "nothing". So nothing can be created from notthing. Think of it like (+1-2+1). (Insert atoms with their anti equivalents) although they effectively cancel out to nothing, they are not. These phenomenons are created randomly from nothing. Just another jigsaw in our wonderfully complex existence.

Remember, there is only existence. It has no negative.
Is the universe expanding? Into where? It can't expand to someplace which can't store void can it?

Either that or a bloke with a wand who's not good at maths did it? 2 very compelling arguments, you decide.

[Surgenator]

Guys, is it possible for matter/antimatter to join and create nothing?
Or will we always have an energy release in the positive direction.

matter + antimatter = positive energy
positive energy + gravity = 0

If any type of exotic matter/energy entity together with its antimatter equivalent "can" ever exist together, even for an immeasurably small amount of time, this combination could be seen to be "nothing". So nothing can be created from notthing. Think of it like (+1-2+1). (Insert atoms with their anti equivalents) although they effectively cancel out to nothing, they are not. These phenomenons are created randomly from nothing. Just another jigsaw in our wonderfully complex existence.

I haven't actually read Hawking's book, but this is in essence what Hawking is referring to according to my cosmo friends.

Remember, there is only existence. It has no negative.
Is the universe expanding? Into where? It can't expand to someplace which can't store void can it?

Yes the universe is expanding. "Into where" is a loaded question. The universes boundary is getting bigger that is what they mean by it is expanding. It doesn't necessarily mean that it is taking over some other entity's space.

[ignoramus]

The "known" universe is getting bigger.
The unknown or undiscovered universe (-conjecture) is the same (just no objects in it yet ...isn't that what we mean by the "known" universe is getting bigger?)
Surely the universe isn't banging on the walls of the "sandbox" and stretching it out.

[archangle]

Agreed. There are few things more belligerently ignorant than claiming the laws of physics as observed today predate the universe, especially knowing the laws of physics were different at the beginning of the universe in Planck time.

Then how did the universe come to be, if there was absolutely nothing 'preceding' it? I know this is highly speculative conjecture, but regardless... Hawking seems to argue that because of these laws it means a universe can come from absolute nothing without a cause.

nobody knows the answer to this. Nobody

That being said, we also have to understand these guys want to be famous and earn a living so they make claims with a fair amount of certainty sometimes.

The universe could have started from "nothing" or "something". So we can pick one and try and defend it.

But nothing freaks me out more than "nothing" so I am a "something" guy. Quantum soup, brains, or even cyclic type of events. I am not a "creator" or "inventor' type tho.


You grammer nazi punk asses pick that "brain" up ... smart branes

---

The "known" universe is getting bigger.
The unknown or undiscovered universe (-conjecture) is the same (just no objects in it yet ...isn't that what we mean by the "known" universe is getting bigger?)
Surely the universe isn't banging on the walls of the "sandbox" and stretching it out.

It just may be doing that exact thing.

Also, acceleration is change in speed or direction (or both). What if we are on a really big set of cosmic balls? The curve of the love eggs would be seen as acceleration form our view point.

[Surgenator]

Then how did the universe come to be, if there was absolutely nothing 'preceding' it? I know this is highly speculative conjecture, but regardless... Hawking seems to argue that because of these laws it means a universe can come from absolute nothing without a cause.

nobody knows the answer to this. Nobody

Agreed

The "known" universe is getting bigger.
The unknown or undiscovered universe (-conjecture) is the same (just no objects in it yet ...isn't that what we mean by the "known" universe is getting bigger?)
Surely the universe isn't banging on the walls of the "sandbox" and stretching it out.

From our current understanding of the universe, the universe is getting bigger. This is known by how fast objects are moving away from us. Also, the universe has no borders just like a surface of the earth has no borders. You can go in one direction and eventually come back to the same spot.

To suggest there exist something else is unfounded. The popular multiverse theory is motivated by m-theory (string theory v2.0), which has NOT been tested. It's just spectulation based on mathematical metaphysics.

[Brian37]

I hate opening this can of worms because theists always go "you used the word created, so therefore everything has a creator" or " You used the word Law so everything has to have a lawgiver".

Idiots don't understand those words have completely different meanings in science having nothing to do withe magic men with magic wands.

Yes, "laws" in science are not like laws government passes. "Laws" in science are a description of long term observations that DESCRIBE a consistency of repeated observation.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Whenever you describe something, you also imply something: that there's a reason for the behavior or property you're describing-- and, quite often, it's understood that the ultimate reason hasn't been discovered "yet." So when you talk about the rule of gravity, which is a fairly simple description of the behavior of massive objects at a distance, there's always the understanding: things don't just move-- there is something about the things, or the universe, or both, which allows their movement and necessitates it. We just don't understand what it is.

Nor is it unfair or nonsensical to conflate the mathematical description with that part of reality which underlies it-- whatever that might be. The words "law of gravity," therefore, can be equally taken to refer to the mathematical description of gravity as to the underlying aspect of reality which causes things to move.

For the most part, I agree. However, I don't think it's really fair to say scientific descriptions are just taken at face value with any further implications.

Huh? Where did I claim scientific descriptions are taken at face value? I never said that. Nothing about science should ever be taken at face value. It is precisely because science says to repeatedly test and falsify and get peer review that we have our modern knowledge.

Saying that new data may build upon our current understanding is not the same as clinging to bad claims or bad data. I am saying an "open mind" does not require us to let our brains fall out.

There still are scientific reasons we call things "laws".