start of the universe question

[billwilliams1979]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

[1over137]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

Scientists are working on a theory that would combine all 4 forces: gravity, strong, electromagnetic, weak. Without such a theory they cannot go closer to the origin of the universe.

And they are not ingoring other laws of physics. They calculate with other 3 forcesas well. In fact, currently, they do not calculate with gravity in the earliest times of universe because they do not know how. Maybe quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity or what will help.

[Ivellious]

1over137 is correct. Scientists who study the origins of the universe and the early universe make use of all the natural forces of the universe in their calculations and simulations. The math and science is generally beyond my understanding (I study biology and chemistry, not physics), but I've never heard of them simply ignoring fundamental forces.

[hughfarey]

The scientific hypothesis that something can come from nothing owes nothing at all to the law of gravity as such. The law of gravity is a fragment of a much larger mathematical construction, some of it still somewhat incoherent, which demonstrates the possibility that one of the properties of nothing is that something can emerge from it. Gravity is one of the properties of something, not one of the properties of nothing, and so is irrelevant in the actual creation of something from nothing, although it kicks in very quickly once the something has been created.

[billwilliams1979]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

Scientists are working on a theory that would combine all 4 forces: gravity, strong, electromagnetic, weak. Without such a theory they cannot go closer to the origin of the universe.

And they are not ingoring other laws of physics. They calculate with other 3 forcesas well. In fact, currently, they do not calculate with gravity in the earliest times of universe because they do not know how. Maybe quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity or what will help.

Okay then. What doesn't make sense to me is how they can say there is zero net energy in the universe and somehow say then, that the law of consevation of energy was not violated when nothing spawned our universe. I understand how the law of gravitation cancels out motion energy. What I don't understand is how does the law of gravitation cancel out nucleaer energy, heat energy, all the other kinds of energy in the universe? Can anyone explain this in a way that might make sense to a non-scientist?
thanks,

[billwilliams1979]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

Scientists are working on a theory that would combine all 4 forces: gravity, strong, electromagnetic, weak. Without such a theory they cannot go closer to the origin of the universe.

And they are not ingoring other laws of physics. They calculate with other 3 forcesas well. In fact, currently, they do not calculate with gravity in the earliest times of universe because they do not know how. Maybe quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity or what will help.

I can understand how you could take the force of motion and say that it is counter-acted by the force of gravity. What I do not understand is how the forces of nuclear energy and heat energy and all the different kinds of energy in the universe, can be negated by gravity.
Can anyone explain this?

[hughfarey]

I'm not sure how complicated you would like the answer here. There is no such thing as the "force of motion." I guess what you're thinking is that since gravity is an attractive force between masses which depends on their distance apart, then when their distance apart is zero, then the force of gravity must be infinite. That's logical but it breaks down at very small distances, when concepts such as the "distance between masses" cease to have real meaning, and electromagnetic and atomic forces, which can be repulsive as well as attractive, may overwhelm gravitational forces. If we knew exactly what the relationship was between the four fundamental forces we would understand this rather better, but at the moment we don't.

[1over137]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

Scientists are working on a theory that would combine all 4 forces: gravity, strong, electromagnetic, weak. Without such a theory they cannot go closer to the origin of the universe.

And they are not ingoring other laws of physics. They calculate with other 3 forcesas well. In fact, currently, they do not calculate with gravity in the earliest times of universe because they do not know how. Maybe quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity or what will help.

Okay then. What doesn't make sense to me is how they can say there is zero net energy in the universe and somehow say then, that the law of consevation of energy was not violated when nothing spawned our universe. I understand how the law of gravitation cancels out motion energy. What I don't understand is how does the law of gravitation cancel out nucleaer energy, heat energy, all the other kinds of energy in the universe? Can anyone explain this in a way that might make sense to a non-scientist?
thanks,

They say:

"The creation of a particle-antiparticle pair out of the vacuum violates the law of conservation of energy but the Heisenberg uncertainty principle allows such violations for a very short time. "

"If it is true that our Universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the vacuum of some larger space in which our Universe is imbedded. In answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our Universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time."

[DRDS]

Does anybody know why the atheistic origin of the universe theories use the law of gravity but ignore the other laws of physics? That seems to be inconsistent to me and it seems to me that the first law would prevent any kind of a spontaneous Big Bang from virtual particles.

Scientists are working on a theory that would combine all 4 forces: gravity, strong, electromagnetic, weak. Without such a theory they cannot go closer to the origin of the universe.

And they are not ingoring other laws of physics. They calculate with other 3 forcesas well. In fact, currently, they do not calculate with gravity in the earliest times of universe because they do not know how. Maybe quantum gravity, loop quantum gravity or what will help.

Ok, let me get this straight. If the scientists are able to come up with this theory and make it work, and if everything checks out, would this at least, to them, prove that God does not exist and or that His intervention is not required for the universe's origin? If that's the case, how close are they to "getting their way" or how much progress are they making? I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss are a big part in this. :/

[Ivellious]

Ok, let me get this straight. If the scientists are able to come up with this theory and make it work, and if everything checks out, would this at least, to them, prove that God does not exist and or that His intervention is not required for the universe's origin?

Where did you get that from? That's not even close. The top physicists in the world study the issues surrounding the fundamental forces (and how they fit together) because it is arguably the biggest mystery in physics today. God has nothing to do with it. Whether they figure out the math or not, it will do nothing to support or refute God's existence.

If that's the case, how close are they to "getting their way" or how much progress are they making? I wouldn't be surprised if Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss are a big part in this. :/

It's tough to accurately say how "close" they are to coming up with a feasible solution, considering it could potentially be a single stroke of genius that suddenly solves it overnight. Or, it might never happen. Or, new discoveries could render the question moot in the first place, and physics could move in a totally different direction of study.

And for the record, while you seem somewhat distraught over the thought of Hawking working on this problem, but to me that's a silly stance to take...Why wouldn't you want one of (if not the) smartest physicist of his generation working on research in physics? Because he's an atheist?