Cosmogony

[PoPpAScience]

I feel that we should have a section for the study of Cosmogony theories, and idea's. I, being an Cosmogonist, a studier of the origins of the cosmos, would like to have a place in this forum for this purpose. What do others think of this idea?

[austintorn@aol.com]

Good thread topic, for it brings it all together on the large scale, one that ever leads to the smaller scale of the Toe.

It can cover some astronomy, too.

[SteveA]

I feel that we should have a section for the study of Cosmogony theories, and idea's. I, being an Cosmogonist, a studier of the origins of the cosmos, would like to have a place in this forum for this purpose. What do others think of this idea?

I guess a good related question is whether or not physical laws are themselves created by laws or if at some point there has to exist something beyond such a chain of determinism.

If so, what properties might arise in the first such "law" or deterministic thing that came from indeterminism/randomness or can they arise side by side or can determinism construct at least an illusion of change (I don't think it can)?

[austintorn@aol.com]

THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE NAURAL AND CAUSELESS A principle of point-of-view invariance is equivalent to the principle of covariance when applied to space-time. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space. Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply. Spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs as well.

[SteveA]

THE LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE ARE NAURAL AND CAUSELESS A principle of point-of-view invariance is equivalent to the principle of covariance when applied to space-time. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.

Notice that point of view invariance could also arise from remaining at a single observational point - it appears universal and causeless because it's the only version known.

If an observer was stationary in space (not a physical space), this would also be the biased perspective as the interpretation would be that the laws were the same no matter "where" they went, because they didn't actually move in that space (for example, a constant light speed implies no motion relative to light)

Spontaneous symmetry breaking occurs as well.

Yes, that appears to be the inexplicable part.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Where Did the Laws of the Universe Come From?

The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics.

But where did the laws of physics come from?

There were no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.

The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.

Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists. If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.

This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time.

The principle must be true for all points of views. And, so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.

That, of course, has been tried, but has ever failed. Here is a religious example:

A law was made (made up) that all objects move toward us. Now, that is not objective, but that was precisely what a whole lot of people on Earth once thought—that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the natural motion of the bodies was ever toward Earth: the sun, the other planets… everything!

The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and so that was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.

As Noether proved in 1915, this actually leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.

Later it was realized that Einstein’s special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time.

These are called symmetries, such as when a spinning sphere doesn’t single out a particular direction in space.

These four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void of near ‘nothing’ (the quantum uncertainty, also called quantum tunneling).

The laws are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from ‘nothing’.

Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and he various force laws, arise from the generalizations of space-time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematical models. These are called gauge invariance—the principle of point-of-view invariance.

So, when generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance—and is indeed of a much better wording of the concept.

Thus, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally. Others arise by spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles.

So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from ‘nothing’. They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere.

Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.

To review, the conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance. The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance. Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus, practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.

1. Noether’s Theorem

In 1915, mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the generators of continuous space-time transformations are conserved when those transformations leave the system unchanged. These generators were identified with energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. The implications can be summarized as follows:

• In any space-time model possessing time translation invariance, energy must be
conserved.

• In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved.

• In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved.

So, again, when physicists formulate mathematical models they must do so in such a way that those models are independent of the point of view of the observer. That is, they must be point-of-view invariant. Otherwise they cannot expect the models to describe an objective reality.

Noether showed that any model that does not depend on a specific moment in time, position in space, and direction in space will automatically conserve energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. Classical mechanics is thus derived from point-of-view invariance.

When the directional invariance is extended to space-time, Lorentz invariance and special relativity follow.

Gauge invariance is another name for the invariance under transformations of the coordinate system in the abstract space of mathematical functions such as the quantum mechanical state vector.

Quantum mechanics itself can be seen as the mathematics of gauge transformations in which the generators of transformations correspond to various physical observables. By a generalization of Noether’s theorem, global gauge invariance leads to conservation of electric charge and the electric and magnetic fields are introduced to preserve local gauge invariance.

Gauge principles also lead to the standard model of particle and fields, with the weak and strong forces also introduced in order to preserve local gauge invariance.

The broken gauge symmetry of the electroweak force can be viewed as an attempt to describe events from a special point-of-view—that of current “low energy” experiments. The underlying theory, applicable at high energies such as those in the early universe, remains gauge symmetric.

What place, then, for laws being legislated?

[SteveA]

Where Did the Laws of the Universe Come From?

The origin and the operation of the universe do not require any violations of laws of physics.

But are the laws of physics even complete yet? We're still using statistical approximations which can't even predict the detection of a single photon except in the sense that if you wait long enough, one is likely to come along.

Is that as good as we can do?

What unifies the detection of collections of photons as a wave? What's the photon that sees collections of photons in this sense?

But where did the laws of physics come from?

There were no laws before there were laws and so one might think that the laws had to come from outside of the universe; however, they came from within.

The laws of physics were not handed down from above. Neither are they rules somehow built into the structure of the universe. They are ingredients of the models that physicists invent to describe observations.

Well what models are available for physicists to invent and what limits these?

Rather than being restrictions on the behavior of matter, the laws of physics are restrictions on the behavior of physicists.

And it appears we agree.

If the models of physics are to describe observations based on an objective reality, then those models cannot depend on the point of view of the observer.

That's a problem though - how can they observe things that they don't have access to? This appears to be a scenario that's doomed to guesswork and failure, though they can verify laws of physics, those laws don't need to objectively exist - they only need to subjectively exist.

Notice that if my comment is correct, then what would an objective reality appear as?

Well any objective reality that had no influence to subjective experiences can be ruled out as irrelevant and only those components of a shared objective reality that intersected a subjective observation point could be considered "real".

This suggests a principle of point-of-view invariance that is equivalent to the principle of covariance (or cosmological principle, or Copernican principle) when applied to space-time.

The principle must be true for all points of views. And, so, for example, no objective law can depend on a special moment in time or position in space that may be singled out by some preferred observer.

How do you move out of your subjective viewpoint though?

It's easy to say that something needs to be invariant from all points of view but won't you just end up proving to yourself that all your own assumed objective points of view still reflect the same subjective assumptions you imposed upon them?

That, of course, has been tried, but has ever failed. Here is a religious example:

A law was made (made up) that all objects move toward us. Now, that is not objective, but that was precisely what a whole lot of people on Earth once thought—that the Earth was the center of the universe and that the natural motion of the bodies was ever toward Earth: the sun, the other planets… everything!

How do you see a photon moving away from you? Science still says everything moves toward us and we're at the center of the (known) universe.

Despite all the attempts to see space objectively, the subjective view remains.

Is there a way to truly see things objectively? It may be impossible, though prematurely believing that ones perspective has "escaped" subjectivity could be a common problem in history.

The Copernican revolution showed this was wrong and so that was the first step in the gradual realization of scientists that their laws must not depend on frame of reference.

As Noether proved in 1915, this actually leads to the principles of energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum conservation and essentially all of classical mechanics. These laws automatically appear in any model that does not single out a special moment in time, position in space, and direction in space.

And it would be interesting to see what additional laws we could find from having an even more encompassing perspective - I don't think there's a way to escape subjectivity, though the perspective can be expanded.

Later it was realized that Einstein’s special theory of relativity follows if we do not single out any special direction in four-dimensional space-time.

These are called symmetries, such as when a spinning sphere doesn’t single out a particular direction in space.

But also notice that a spherical perception can arise from simply moving an unknown distance in an unknown direction (with an implicit subjective origin). A sphere is not particularly useful in this respect - it's not specifically anywhere. It's not oriented in any particular direction and it has no specific diameter. It's also nothing we physically find in space.

These four space-time symmetries described above are just the natural symmetries of a universe with no matter, that is, a void of near ‘nothing’ (the quantum uncertainty, also called quantum tunneling).

Correct. It's not a world of sight and sound etc.

The laws are just what they should be if the universe appeared from an initial state in which there was no matter—from ‘nothing’.

You appear to be describing an intelligent creation from nothing. Where did the logic come from to append these laws to nothing?

I think it takes matter to define that logic and that matter did not come from nothing and matter sees the universe in terms of logic that it internally possesses.

[SteveA]

Other laws of physics, such as conservation of electric charge and he various force laws, arise from the generalizations of space-time symmetries to the abstract spaces physicists use in their mathematical models. These are called gauge invariance—the principle of point-of-view invariance.

Well let's take it from another perspective. Let's say that there is a unique and invariant and intelligent observational point.

A motion relative to this point can always appear as a part of a rotational cycle as a motion encompasses some angular displacement (if there was no angular displacement, then there would be no appearance of motion - though we could construct depth by using a diverging angle between two points and triangulating them).

Conservation of electric charge could also be imagined under such a scenario because a net attraction or repulsion to space simply compresses or expands it and this is not a visible change from a stationary point which is only measuring the angles from a common center.

Once again, the same observations arise from an immobile subjective perception of space.

So, when generalized to the abstract space of functions such as the quantum state vector, point-of-view invariance is identified with gauge invariance—and is indeed of a much better wording of the concept.

Thus, most of the familiar laws of physics appear naturally. Others arise by spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Quantum mechanics is then just the mathematics of gauge transformations with no additional assumptions needed to obtain its rules, including the superposition and uncertainty principles.

Notice that if we converted points to gaussian distributions, and we sum these in a linear dimension, they remain gaussians. This doesn't mean that there is actually any more uncertainty that that assumed to objectively exist (subjectively there is no uncertainty about the result of a coin toss or die role etc. It's only when you try to generalize to an inexperienceable objective reality that an intangible uncertainty is needed to emulate an unknown - that's not a "real" unknown).

So, where did the laws of physics come from? They came from ‘nothing’. They follow from the ‘void’ out of which the universe spontaneously arose uncaused. These laws look exactly as they should if they were not handed down from anywhere.

The laws themselves are products of logic and intelligence - a little more than nothing, but they also don't explain the specifics - the fact that we don't experience an "uncollapsed" version of this, so they don't include a "will" either.

Back at the Planck time of the big bang, the universe had no distinguishable place, direction, or time: it had no structure; thus, the conservation laws apply.

Conservation of an unknown? How was anyone able to verify such a Planck scale universe existed?

To review, the conservation of electric charge, isospin, and other quantities follow from global gauge invariance.

They also follow from a construction of spacial perception via intelligence and a fixed subjective perspective.

The forces in the standard model of elementary particles are fields introduced to preserve local gauge invariance.

That's another problem with the standard model and it's embedded within the "local" discontinuity. Relativity has this problem as well in that it can't describe how a "local" reference is constructed.

Gravity can also be viewed as such a field. Thus, practically all of fundamental physics as we know it follows directly from the single principle of point-of-view invariance.

Or also from an invariant point of view.

1. Noether’s Theorem

In 1915, mathematician Emmy Noether proved that the generators of continuous space-time transformations are conserved when those transformations leave the system unchanged. These generators were identified with energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. The implications can be summarized as follows:

• In any space-time model possessing time translation invariance, energy must be
conserved.

Notice that I also stated that energy (or information) conservation arises from finite bandwidth perceptions in time.

If an observer contains a set of n possible distinguishable states they can determine from, then making a selection from these requires the same quantity of information.

Consider that we could rescale the universe in terms of energy as well, but similar to time, measurements of energy are also relative.

• In any space-time model possessing space-translation invariance, linear momentum must be conserved.

Notice again that if only a fixed subjective was available there can appear to be linear conservation of motion because no motion actually occured and the memory of motion remains the same after an object has passed by an ability to interact with it.

In other words, let's say you were at an origin to some space and some object moving in a positive X direction was encountered - you can assume that the object will continue moving in a positive X direction after this event and have no manner to verify it otherwise.

Of course if we see matter via. photons then we're not really seeing where an object is but where photons portary it to be. Photons have also been assumed to travel in straight lines at constant velocity, but this has not been verified and we only end up measuring light at inconstant speeds and can't see light in a vacuum either.

There's nothing that can disprove that only a stationary subjective perspective is being used because that's how it's all tied together.

• In any space-time model possessing space-rotation invariance, angular momentum must be conserved.

If you imagine a depth to space and accept the ability for an object to move lateral to your position, then you're constructing the concept of angular motion.

Though this rotation is a projection from local information which did not contain such a rotation, so you'll be adding an uncertainty to the position of this orbiting object, if you ever want to reinteract with it and sure enough that's the case observed in quantum mechanics.

So, again, when physicists formulate mathematical models they must do so in such a way that those models are independent of the point of view of the observer.

But since they can't actually do this, they instead generate mathematical formulas that agree with making observations from a fixed point and finding that attempts to generalize upon them objectively lead to uncertainty.

That is, they must be point-of-view invariant. Otherwise they cannot expect the models to describe an objective reality.

But why should it be assumed that an objective reality holds true to locally/subjectively observed laws.

How was such a subjective view constructed and what allows for time/change to occur to such a subjective state?

Noether showed that any model that does not depend on a specific moment in time, position in space, and direction in space will automatically conserve energy, linear momentum, and angular momentum. Classical mechanics is thus derived from point-of-view invariance.

Actually it appears that a subjective model comes to these conclusions. An objective model likely violates these as it's not constrained by subjective assumptions.

...
What place, then, for laws being legislated?

Great question. That's what I've been trying to figure out. If logic can deduce it, it's certainty not easy for me to figure out.

[austintorn@aol.com]

Time to switch to some astronomy…

In 585 BCE, on May 28 exactly, at a precise minute, the Medes and the Lydians were battling in Aisa Minor, but the battle ended from an event that caused both sides to flee in terror: an eclipse of the sun.

Thales of Miletus, in the first known case of sceintific prediction, had even used Babylonian records to predict the eclipse!

It was the power of science of today that postdicted the exact date of the event to May 28, 585 BCE, to the minute.

These were very interesting times, indeed, for around that time, Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem and then carried off the Judeans into exile in Babylonia, which is where they would pick up their creation myth!

Amazingy, the Buddha is said to have attained enlightenment amost exactly at the same time.

Confuscius, a slight latecomer, would be born just a few decades later.

What heady times.

Comets were scary, too, seen as supernatural omens, but again, they have been since described in totally natural terms.

Of course, then came more unexpected occurances, more recently: pulsars, supernovas, quasars, and gamma ray bursts. They eventually repeated and so we learned their nature in purely physical terms. Science explained them all.

So far, at no time and at no place have we run across an event above any noise that did not repeat sometime or someplace and could not be accounted for in terms of established natural science.

[PoPpAScience]

Good thread topic, for it brings it all together on the large scale, one that ever leads to the smaller scale of the Toe.

It can cover some astronomy, too.

A Cosmogonist is one that theorizes about the origin of the Universe, and that is it.