Well...do the laws of physics define reality, or not?

Question

I was watching "Parallel Universes" on the Science Channel last night, which was a very interesting special touching on string theory and super gravity. It was most interesting for me to see some of the Scientists being interviewed, when being asked questions regarding the singularity, that is, that single point of existance which, in theory, went *bang*, for no apparent reason, point which no theory has ever been able to explain, (although string theory does offer an idea, as humerous as it is...)

The following is a quote of what one scientist was saying, and you will have to forgive me, because I was unable to catch his name, but he was either an astrophysicist, or a quantam physicist; it is hard to tell because he made allusions to both. He made a very interesting point, which although had been made before, I had never heard it said in this manner...(I will have to start a new thread here now)

This quote is 97 % accurate, save a few grammatical differences maybe. I started writing right after he started talking, and in any event, it makes perfect sense.

"The problem with theories of origins is that if one traces Einstein's theory of relativity back to a single, beginning point for our universe, it is at that point that our universal laws of physics smply break down. One might ask why this is a problem, but it is a HUGE problem for us as physicists, becaus we dedicate our lives to the notion that there are certain laws around which iur universe operates; and here we have the central beginning point of our universe, being totally outside the realm of our universal laws...."

I wanted to see what some people who had knowledge in the areas of physics would have to say, before I go on with this. of course, many of you DO know where this is headed, rriight?

Also, let me stress the meaning of that last sentance;

"here we have the central beginning point of our universe, BEING COMPLETELY OUTSIDE THE REALM OF OUR UNIVERSAL LAWS..."

You mean, maybe like a membrane of theories, err...excuse me, alternate universes, or perhaps something like...God.

Hey Physics D: Isn't it funny to you how some scientists have to keep working on more theories to cover their theories...kind-of similar to a few other things I have heard of...

I am not ONLY trying to make a point for God's existance, .... Oh I guess I will just post another and see if this don't make sense.

Answer 1

First of all, YES, the laws of physics defines reality. That's by definition. If reality were defined by something else, then, we'll call that the laws of physics.

That being said, most physicists today believe that the true laws of physics will explain everything without the need for any outside information to explain the origin and evolution of the Universe, from singularity to Big Bang, then whatever else. There is NO breakdown.

The quote you're referring to is speaking ONLY in the context of today's understanding of physics, i.e. based on Einstein's Theory of General Reativity and the Standard Model (Quanum Mechanics), which does break down at the singularity.

This means ONE thing: General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics by themselves are WRONG.

That's why nearly all physicists today are working on the development of Quantum Gravity, or a quantum theory of general relativity. One of these theories is Superstring Theory, and there are others.

So sorry, there is no need to invoke God into the conversation.

Answer 2

The reason math and physics break down at the point of the Big Bang and before, is because before time = 0, there was no math or science. But we usually don't care about time < 0, because it has no effect on our reality. Our science makes models of the universe and our 'language' of math explains these models very well. When you look back in time up to the point of time = 0, our 'language' works perfectly - we can explain back to when time = billionths of a second, then - at time <= 0, a scientist must become a philosopher. So, can there really be a unified theory of everything? Or are we just chasing a mirage? There seem to be three possibilities:

• There really is a complete unified theory, which we will someday discover if we are smart enough.

• There is no ultimate theory of the universe, just an infinite sequence of theories that describe the universe more and more accurately.

• There is no theory of the universe. Events cannot be predicted beyond a certain extent but occur in a random and arbitrary manner.

Some would argue for the third possibility on the grounds that if there were complete set of laws, that would infringe on God’s freedom to change His mind and to intervene in the world. It’s a bit like the old paradox: Can God make a stone so heavy that He can’t lift it? But the idea that God might want to change His example of the fallacy, pointed out by St. Augustine, of imagining God as a being existing in time. Time is a property only of the universe that God created. Presumably, He knew what He intended when He set it up. With the advent of quantum mechanics, we have come to realize that events cannot be predicted with complete accuracy but that there is always a degree of uncertainty. If one liked, one could ascribe this randomness to the intervention of God. But it would be a very strange kind of intervention. There is no evidence that it is directed toward any purpose. Indeed, if it were, it wouldn’t be random. In modern times, we have effectively removed the third possibility by redefining the goal of science. Our aim is to formulate a set of laws that will enable us to predict events up to the limit set by the uncertainty principle.
The second possibility, that there is an infinite sequence of more and more refined theories, is in agreement with all our experience so far. On many occasions, we have increased the sensitivity of our measurements or made a new class of observations only to discover new phenomena that were not predicted by the existing theory. To account for these, we have had to develop a more advanced theory. It would therefore not be very surprising if we find that our present grand unified theories break down when we test them on bigger and more powerful particle accelerators. If we didn’t expect them to break down, there wouldn’t be much point in spending all that money on building more powerful machines.
However, it seems that gravity may provide a limit to this sequence of “boxes within boxes.” If one had a particle with an energy above what is called the Planck energy, 1019 GeV, its mass would be so concentrated that it would cut itself off from the rest of the universe and form a little black hole. Thus, it does seem that the sequence of more and more refined theories should have some limit as we go to higher and higher energies. There should be some ultimate theory of the universe. Of course, the Planck energy is a very long way from the energies of around a GeV, which are the most that we can produce in the laboratory at the present time. To bridge that gap would require a particle accelerator that was bigger than the solar system. Such an accelerator would be unlikely to be funded in the present economic climate.
However, the very early stages of the universe are an arena where such energies must have occurred. I think that there is a good chance that the study of the early universe and the requirements of mathematical consistency will lead us to a complete unified theory by the end of the century—always presuming we don’t blow ourselves up first. What would it mean if we actually did discover the ultimate theory of the universe? It would bring to an end a long and glorious chapter in the history of our struggle to understand the universe. But it would also revolutionize the ordinary person’s understanding of the laws that govern the universe. In Newton’s time it was possible for an educated person to have a grasp of the whole of human knowledge, at least in outline. But ever since then, the pace of development of science has made this impossible. Theories were always being changed to account for new observations. They were never properly digested or simplified so that ordinary people could understand them. You had to be a specialist, and even then you could only hope to have a proper grasp of a small proportional of the scientific theories.
More important than string theory, you should checkout Supersymmetry -

Answer 3

If you paid attention to the rest of the show, they never mentioned God but said that the singularity could be replaced by a collision between two membranes.

Answer 4

Next thing you need to do is define "REALITY"...

No one has ever come up with a definition that suites everybody.
.

Answer 5

It gives great weight to the concept that there's no finite beginning nor end.

_()_

Answer 6

at least 10^-15 percent precise