Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?
analog57_at_yahoo.com
Date: 09/23/04
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: interference question"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Paradox No Relativist Can Weasel Out Of"
- In reply to: Donald Hamilton: "Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- Next in thread: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 23 Sep 2004 10:16:42 -0700
Donald Hamilton wrote:
> Did inertia, gravity, EME, chemistry, etc. exist before the Big Bang?
>
> Don Hamilton
> http://novan.com
1. With a little earnest thought, one realizes that the concept of
"ultimate randomness" is logically absurd.
2. The laws of physics are time independent. They hold for all frames
of reference.
3. Also, even if an ultimate physical randomness is/was true, physical
randomness would not exist without time, or "change" - from one state
to the next.
4. But if the physical laws are time independent then the physical
laws, by definition, did not arise "randomly".
???
[1.] Nothingness is a difficult concept, or rather, a difficult
"non-concept" since it is ...nothing.
[2.] To say that nothingness exists is to create a contradiction, since
nothingness is non-existence. Nothingness "non-exists".
[3.] Nothingness is non-existence; therefore nothingness is
non-relational. Nothingness has no distinctiveness in and of itself,
hence nothingness cannot be recognizable.
[4.] Being-ness means basically "to be", and to exist. Being-ness
exists.
[5.] Take any two distinct quantities-attributes of existence:
A<------P------>B
A and B perceive each other to be different with perception P. That is
to say A is perceived to be different from B and B is perceived to be
different from A.
A and B are different elements of a larger picture, but they also[must]
share certain common attributes of the larger reality
including them. From that perspective A and B are the same, because
aspects of A transform into B and aspects of B transform into A. At a
higher level of generality and symmetry, A cannot be distinguished
from B, and B cannot be distinguished from A. For example, dogs and
cats are distinctively different, yet dogs and cats are the same from
the perspective that both are "mammals".
[6.] Following this premise, it stands to reason that all attributes &
aspects of reality can be transformed into each other, and hence they
have no distinctions from each other[at continually higher and higher
levels of symmetry].
[7.] Therefore, it follows, that at a top[infinite?] level of symmetry,
everything is nothing[non-distinctional].
QED.
Construct physical properties of the hypothetical "string", as
necessary elements in an algebraic language. Define "states" as objects
that act upon physical properties - with the association of a real
number to each property. Then it corresponds to taking expectation
values in the normal QM approach.
But with the algebraic approach, one can treat the states that arise in
all unitarily inequivalent structures - on an equal basis, thereby
enabling one to define the theory without the need for a preferred
construction allowing for unification of GR and QM. Symmetry forms the
basis of unification.
- Next message: Mark Fergerson: "Re: interference question"
- Previous message: Dirk Van de moortel: "Re: The Paradox No Relativist Can Weasel Out Of"
- In reply to: Donald Hamilton: "Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- Next in thread: mmeron_at_cars3.uchicago.edu: "Re: Where all the physical laws in place before the Big Bang occured?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
