Which came First: Physical laws or Energy (matter)?
This question is rarely asked because it is taken for granted that they have always been together. However, the Big Bang couldn't have resulted into order except the laws of Physics existed before the Bang. Conversely, almost all the laws of Physics exist because of matter.


The laws of Physics have been wonderful in explaining precisely behaviours of a vast array of physical phenomenon.

The amazing thing for me however is the harmony of the several constants embedded in the mathematical description of these laws: planks constant, mass of an electron, speed of electromagnetic waves (light), gravitational constants, Rydberg constant, electron charge etc.

If just one of these constant change by less than 0.01%, the universe would not have existed and all the laws of physics presented below may not hold.

1 Conservation laws.
2 Laws of classical mechanics.
3 Laws of gravitation and relativity. (Modern, Classical laws.)
4 Thermodynamics.
5 Electromagnetism.
6 Photonics.
7 Laws of quantum mechanics.
8 Radiation laws.

(Would electromagnetic wave exist with a speed less than c?). Certainly, life would not have existed.

So, the question is:
Which came first,
1. Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics
2. What determined the constants?
Did they come by accident?
3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?
4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

Interestingly, this is a thread I personally don't want to argue for theism. I feel like watching and listening.

No contribution is useless.
cc: donffd, raphieMontella,endtimeshitendtimeshit, onetrack,Lennycool,ValentineMary,Mailthaddeus,SirWere, EyeHateGod, CoolUsername:

How many times will this shii be rehearsed?

However, the Big Bang couldn't have resulted into order except the laws of Physics existed before the Bang

Wow..... this doesnt make any sense. There were no laws of physics before the bang, the laws by which we observe the macro universe to obey today came after matter began to exist. Matter came as a result of quantum interactions in the high energy environment which was the state of the early universe. Such interactions are a scientific fact as massive particles have created by scientists using high energy accelerators, hence the creation of matter from a quantum vaccum(nothing).

So, after the bang, matter came, and the behaviour of this matter in interaction with each other observed over time and possibly empirically tested gives rise to natural laws that explain how things work in the universe.

If just one of these constant change by less than 0.01%, the universe would not have existed and all the laws of physics presented below may not hold.

This universe and all its contents are the way they are because that is just what we came to experience. If these constants are different. stars may not form but maybe something else might come in place and there might be laws that would govern such an alternate world, natural laws, but not just like ours.

So, the question is:
Which came first,
1. Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics

Matter.......and the behaviour of this matter are the laws of physics.

2. What determined the constants?
Did they come by accident?

They are just what they are.

3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?

To a large extent, there isnt any harmony.

4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

There is non.

SirWere:
How many times will this shii be rehearsed?

Never once!
Except if someone else did something like this

taurus25:


Wow..... this doesnt make any sense. There were no laws of physics before the bang, the laws by which we observe the macro universe to obey today came after matter began to exist. Matter came as a result of quantum interactions in the high energy environment which was the state of the early universe. Such interactions are a scientific fact as massive particles have created by scientists using high energy accelerators, hence the creation of matter from a quantum vaccum(nothing).

I agree with you, no law of Physics before the Big Bang.
But the issue is that almost all laws came as a result of Matter/Energy. The laws then interacted with matter and the case become like the case of the chicken and the egg. I believe that the first mass that appeared after the big bang appeared by following a rule(law).

Everything seems like the universes was formed as a result of some mighty probabilistic coincidence since except there were billions of Big bangs of which that which formed our universe is just one of them. But even if this is the case, we expect that the Big bang that created this universe will be proceeded by several others in the near future.

taurus25:

So, after the bang, matter came, and the behaviour of this matter in interaction with each other observed over time and possibly empirically tested gives rise to natural laws that explain how things work in the universe.

It sounds like our universe evolved over a long time after the big Bang. Should we not be asking questions also about when did the first electron or neutron or others evolved. Did the atoms of elements evolve from simpler materials.
If this is true, then the question of when did the laws of Physics start operating. Did the laws appear spontaneously or progressively.
Then, another question is which is these laws are first to seed the other laws.

We know of the four fundamental forces. Is it possible to say which came first. (I assume the forces are responsible for setting the other laws.)

taurus25:

This universe and all its contents are the way they are because that is just what we came to experience. If these constants are different. stars may not form but maybe something else might come in place and there might be laws that would govern such an alternate world, natural laws, but not just like ours.

Your point is understandable. However, the issue remains that would EM waves still be if the speed of light is off by 5%? Would atoms form? A change in the value of just one constant changes drastically many physical laws. If there is no guarantee of a universe like this appearing, there may also be no guarantee of other kinds of universe appearing.

taurus25:

1. Matter.......and the behaviour of this matter are the laws of physics.

If Matter came first, then matter itself self assembled in a random manner and selection probably favoured some ordered form. The underlining rules of these ordered ones are what we call the laws of physics. Can you see why it looks like the universe also experienced its own evolution?

taurus25:

2. They are just what they are.

The laws are measurements of descriptions of the order in matter.
If this is true, it still points to the problem of how order came into matter.

taurus25:

3. To a large extent, there isnt any harmony.

Except you expatiate, I think there is harmony. You will find a simple example in the law of conservation of energy. You can simply change energy from one form into another and write beautiful equations that describes it perfectly. There is sure harmony.

taurus25:

4. There is non.

Yes not proof of multi-universe except in theoretical physics/mathematics can they be implied.

Thanks for your comments.

I like thinking out of the Box especially with Physics. It seems there are many things we take for-granted because of our "beautiful equations".

I kind of think that, if the Big bang resulted into the Universe and the laws of Physics and its constants are measurements of the order within matter, How did matter get so organized?

I expect the big bang to result in randomness if it is true but experience is saying contrary. Then, I think like, Maybe just as in Biology, we can talk about evolution and natural selections?

I am a Theist and I understand that I could be biased BUT these questions still begs for an answer. Yes, the Universes is expanding but can we say for sure that it was as a result of a big Bang. Couldn't it be that the universe is oscillating (with a period of millions of years) and the seeming expansion is just our measurement within the window plane of which we are?

Thanks again.

shadeyinka:


I agree with you, no law of Physics before the Big Bang.
But the issue is that almost all laws came as a result of Matter/Energy. The laws then interacted with matter and the case become like the case of the chicken and the egg. I believe that the first mass that appeared after the big bang appeared by following a rule(law).

Everything seems like the universes was formed as a result of some mighty probabilistic coincidence since except there were billions of Big bangs of which that which formed our universe is just one of them. But even if this is the case, we expect that the Big bang that created this universe will be proceeded by several others in the near future.




It sounds like our universe evolved over a long time after the big Bang. Should we not be asking questions also about when did the first electron or neutron or others evolved. Did the atoms of elements evolve from simpler materials.
If this is true, then the question of when did the laws of Physics start operating. Did the laws appear spontaneously or progressively.
Then, another question is which is these laws are first to seed the other laws.

We know of the four fundamental forces. Is it possible to say which came first. (I assume the forces are responsible for setting the other laws.)




Your point is understandable. However, the issue remains that would EM waves still be if the speed of light is off by 5%? Would atoms form? A change in the value of just one constant changes drastically many physical laws. If there is no guarantee of a universe like this appearing, there may also be no guarantee of other kinds of universe appearing.




If Matter came first, then matter itself self assembled in a random manner and selection probably favoured some ordered form. The underlining rules of these ordered ones are what we call the laws of physics. Can you see why it looks like the universe also experienced its own evolution?




The laws are measurements of descriptions of the order in matter.
If this is true, it still points to the problem of how order came into matter.




Except you expatiate, I think there is harmony. You will find a simple example in the law of conservation of energy. You can simply change energy from one form into another and write beautiful equations that describes it perfectly. There is sure harmony.




Yes not proof of multi-universe except in theoretical physics/mathematics can they be implied.

Thanks for your comments.

I like thinking out of the Box especially with Physics. It seems there are many things we take for-granted because of our "beautiful equations".

I kind of think that, if the Big bang resulted into the Universe and the laws of Physics and its constants are measurements of the order within matter, How did matter get so organized?

I expect the big bang to result in randomness if it is true but experience is saying contrary. Then, I think like, Maybe just as in Biology, we can talk about evolution and natural selections?

I am a Theist and I understand that I could be biased BUT these questions still begs for an answer. Yes, the Universes is expanding but can we say for sure that it was as a result of a big Bang. Couldn't it be that the universe is oscillating (with a period of millions of years) and the seeming expansion is just our measurement within the window plane of which we are?

Thanks again.

Thank you....you've said some really interesting things here, i would try to respond later.

taurus25:


Thank you....you've said some really interesting things here, i would try to respond later.

OK. Waiting.

shadeyinka:
[b]
So, the question is:
Which came first,
1. Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics
2. What determined the constants?
Did they come by accident?
3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?
4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

1. The Laws came before matter as explained by the big bang theory which is the prevalent theory right now.

2. That we dont actually know, there are different hypotheses e.g

Nothing: It might be counter-intuitive but we cant rule out the possibility because we simply dont understand the nature of nothingness.

Intelligent design: It is also possible that it was intelligently designed by something(or most likely group/race of intelligent beings) but it is highly improbable and no reasonable evidence suggest any intelligence outside the solar system.

Multiverse: This is the most likely or probable but not yet experimental provable, it is a far more better explanation and might actually be the reality but it is still an hypothesis and could also be wrong.

3. The harmony suggests patterns not intelligence, we know patterns can arise naturally without any intelligence from our earthly experiences.

4. No, no proof, its just an hypothesis and could be very wrong but it has the best chance of being right.

Hello my friend. Long time!
I've been busy lately hence my absense.
You virtually answered the questions just the same way I would if I were in your state.


1. Which came first, Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics

donnffd:

1. The Laws came before matter as explained by the big bang theory which is the prevalent theory right now.

Not so fast my friend.
Can Electromagnetic waves exist without electrons ( matter)?
Can gravitational constants exist without mass?

To me, matter wouldn't have existed without the laws and the laws wouldn't have existed without matter.

The emergence of both matter and the guiding laws seemes to emerge simultaneously. The simultaneous existence is as a result of intelligent design. Its like an assembly language code exists because the coder understands the architecture of the hardware of the computer.

2. What determined the constants?

donnffd:

That we dont actually know, there are different hypotheses e.g

Nothing: It might be counter-intuitive but we cant rule out the possibility because we simply dont understand the nature of nothingness.

Intelligent design: It is also possible that it was intelligently designed by something(or most likely group/race of intelligent beings) but it is highly improbable and no reasonable evidence suggest any intelligence outside the solar system.

Multiverse: This is the most likely or probable but not yet experimental provable, it is a far more better explanation and might actually be the reality but it is still an hypothesis and could also be wrong.

Interestingly, Christians have always believed in a special kind of multiverse existence with two planes (physical and spiritual) founded by intelligent design and birth.

Sometimes I wonder why science precludes the existence of non physical worlds and existence yet, we believe in complex numbers with real and imaginary parts (conjugate values, virtual values). We perform computations with virtual particles, virtual numbers, displacements.

Could it be that the physical worlds is just the conjugate of the spiritual world. If we do not have equipment and tools for measuring virtual existence, is it enough proof that it doesn't exist?

The nature of nothing is zero, emptiness and nul. We understand the nature of nothing very well from mathematics. The subset of an empty set is always empty (zero) isn't it?

Every physicist know that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Emptiness implies the existence of zero energy before the big bang. If the universe was initially empty of physical energy, then it cannot manufacture the gazillions of giga-joules in existence today.
[/quote]

3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?

donnffd:

The harmony suggests patterns not intelligence, we know patterns can arise naturally without any intelligence from our earthly experiences.

I am sure you are thinking in terms of ice crystals.
However, the beautiful ice crystals exist because behind it is order caused by water being a polar molecule. Let's assume that water is a random arrangement of H2O I.e. the polar angle varies, wouldthe beautiful ice crystals be formed?

Ice crystals are mundanely simple when compared with the kind of systems we see in the universe. Everything works like a MACHINE. In a machine most component affect the overall behavior of the machine and these same components also interdependent on each other.

I agree, seemingly random prints can form beautiful pictures BUT with no FUNCTION.

4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

donnffd:

No, no proof, its just an hypothesis and could be very wrong but it has the best chance of being right.

Of course, no proof yet could be right: complex numbers may actually point us to the right direction.
The question now remains, How can we measure an imaginary current, imaginary mass, imaginary velocity etc knowing that we do not have the capability to produce an imaginary measuring instrument.

Stay blessed

SirWere:
How many times will this shii be rehearsed?

as long as it's unresolved

chrmn1:
as long as it's unresolved

Hi Friend,
Sirwere was probably referring to an old thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/3326337/atheism-contradicts-newtons-first-law

The thread was about the Newtons First law and atheism thesis.

Even then as you rightly said, the issue has not been dealt with. Shalom

shadeyinka:


Hi Friend,
Sirwere was probably referring to an old thread:
https://www.nairaland.com/3326337/atheism-contradicts-newtons-first-law

The thread was about the Newtons First law and atheism thesis.

Even then as you rightly said, the issue has not been dealt with. Shalom

many thanks brother

chrmn1:
many thanks brother

You're welcome

shadeyinka:
Hello my friend. Long time!
I've been busy lately hence my absense.
You virtually answered the questions just the same way I would if I were in your state.

Its alright, i hope you have been well

1. Which came first, Matter or the Laws and constants of Physics

Not so fast my friend.
Can Electromagnetic waves exist without electrons ( matter)?
Can gravitational constants exist without mass?

To me, matter wouldn't have existed without the laws and the laws wouldn't have existed without matter.

The emergence of both matter and the guiding laws seemes to emerge simultaneously. The simultaneous existence is as a result of intelligent design. Its like an assembly language code exists because the coder understands the architecture of the hardware of the computer.

I agree that we can say they appeared together because the four fundamental laws were one at the instant of the big bang, as the universe cooled, so dis we start seeing their effects like the strong and weak nuclear force, then as the cooling furthered electromagnetism appeared with gravity being the last as the universe cleared and light was free to move around.

I would say the laws are properties of matter in different states.

2. What determined the constants?


Interestingly, Christians have always believed in a special kind of multiverse existence with two planes (physical and spiritual) founded by intelligent design and birth.

Sometimes I wonder why science precludes the existence of non physical worlds and existence yet, we believe in complex numbers with real and imaginary parts (conjugate values, virtual values). We perform computations with virtual particles, virtual numbers, displacements.

Could it be that the physical worlds is just the conjugate of the spiritual world. If we do not have equipment and tools for measuring virtual existence, is it enough proof that it doesn't exist?

The nature of nothing is zero, emptiness and nul. We understand the nature of nothing very well from mathematics. The subset of an empty set is always empty (zero) isn't it?

Every physicist know that energy can not be created nor destroyed. Emptiness implies the existence of zero energy before the big bang. If the universe was initially empty of physical energy, then it cannot manufacture the gazillions of giga-joules in existence today.

There is a difference between abstract mathematical ideas and reality, because invoking abstract ideas like imaginary numbers and the likes doesnt mean it must translate to reality. Reality has always dictated what it is to us and not we forcing wat we think it is to it.

@bolded, if you were to add up all the net energy charge in the universe, you would get zero. What does that tell you?, it means you ddnt have to get energy from anywhere, its like breaking up 0 into -1 and 1. It is very possible that our universe is a product of nothing, please remember that the universe doesnt have to make sense to us.

3. Doesn't the harmony suggest Creation/Intelligent Design?

The harmony suggests patterns not intelligence, we know patterns can arise naturally without any intelligence from our earthly experiences.


I am sure you are thinking in terms of ice crystals.
However, the beautiful ice crystals exist because behind it is order caused by water being a polar molecule. Let's assume that water is a random arrangement of H2O I.e. the polar angle varies, wouldthe beautiful ice crystals be formed?

Ice crystals are mundanely simple when compared with the kind of systems we see in the universe. Everything works like a MACHINE. In a machine most component affect the overall behavior of the machine and these same components also interdependent on each other.

I agree, seemingly random prints can form beautiful pictures BUT with no FUNCTION.

Just because the patterns of the universe are far more grand doesnt exempt it from just being simplistic at its very core, i am sure you would agree!

4. Is there any physical proof of multi-universe?

No, no proof, its just an hypothesis and could be very wrong but it has the best chance of being right.

Of course, no proof yet could be right: complex numbers may actually point us to the right direction.
The question now remains, How can we measure an imaginary current, imaginary mass, imaginary velocity etc knowing that we do not have the capability to produce an imaginary measuring instrument.

Stay blessed

Equating imaginary numbers in maths to the multiverse might be off to some degree, the multiverse is not an abstract idea, it could be reality and all we need for it to be sure is evidence direct or indirectly. Imaginary numbers doesnt need proving as long as it works in the mathematical framework.

@OP,

1."However the Big Bang couldn't have resulted into order except the laws of physics existed before the Big Bang".....................You made two mistakes in this statement!!! First Error, the Universe is not ordered!!! Second error, the present laws of physics were not needed during the Big Bang, because "ALL CLASSICAL LAWS OF PHYSICS BREAK DOWN IN A QUANTUM UNIVERSE!!!

2."Conversely, almost all laws of physics exist because of matter!!!...................................So are there laws that exist because of "non-matter"? I am not aware of them!!! Can you list them? Remember that energy, electricity, heat, gravity and light are all different aspects of matter!!!

3.Gravity is not constant!!! It is in permanent flux!!! The speed of light isn't constant either!!!

4."Would electromagnetic wave exist with a speed of light less than c? Surely life wouldn't have existed"......................Surely? Surely?!!! SURELY?!!! What is the speed of light in water? The speed of light in space? The speed of light in crystals and the speed of light in air? DON'T LIVING THINGS EXIST IN ALL THESE PLACES?!!!

donnffd:

Its alright, i hope you have been well
.

Hi my Friend.
I still can believe I am more quiet on NL these days. Trying to find a small nitch in helping people behind the scene.

donnffd:

I agree that we can say they appeared together because the four fundamental laws were one at the instant of the big bang, as the universe cooled, so dis we start seeing their effects like the strong and weak nuclear force, then as the cooling furthered electromagnetism appeared with gravity being the last as the universe cleared and light was free to move around.

I would say the laws are properties of matter in different states.
.

I agree with you. The laws and matter obviously appeared together. But then, we have some problems.

I will like to treat matter and its laws as a system. If this is correct (just like fuel and and automobile).
1. Could the simultaneous nature be a coincidence?
If it was a coincidence, the statistical odds for it happening at a go is astonishing. If it was a coincidence, we still need to account for what set the ball rolling.
2. Was it an evolution?
Your explanation "as the universe cooled" gives me the impression of an evolution. If it was, in what direction (least energy, least forces etc).

The problems are daunting, don't you think so?
The problems may not proof creation but it cast doubt on our scientific postulates and theories of creation.

donnffd:

There is a difference between abstract mathematical ideas and reality, because invoking abstract ideas like imaginary numbers and the likes doesnt mean it must translate to reality. Reality has always dictated what it is to us and not we forcing wat we think it is to it.
.

Of course, there may not be a physical connection to real phenomenon (that is why they are sometimes called imaginary values). The point is that science is willing to accept the evidence of sqrt(-1) than spirits on the excuse that spirits cannot be physically measured. Can anyone really translate the value of sqrt(-1) into a physical measure?

donnffd:

@bolded, if you were to add up all the net energy charge in the universe, you would get zero. What does that tell you?, it means you ddnt have to get energy from anywhere, its like breaking up 0 into -1 and 1. It is very possible that our universe is a product of nothing, please remember that the universe doesnt have to make sense to us.
.

If we add up all the energies of the universe, should it give us zero? Wouldn't this violate
1. the laws of conservation of energy (since energy can neither be created nor destroyed)
2. If the net energy in the universe was zero, wouldn't bit take energy to separate these energies?

Could our universe be a product of nothing? If one puts two isolated point opposite charges apart in a vacuum. Even at infinity, they will attract each other until they form a neutral charge.

I understand the challenge you face: matter must have originated from somewhere in time and matter must have been absent in the universe some times ago. So, did the big bang separate matter and antimatter and flunged them to infinity apart?

Its like the God syndrome: who created God?
AND
Who initiated the original matter?

donnffd:

Just because the patterns of the universe are far more grand doesnt exempt it from just being simplistic at its very core, i am sure you would agree!
.

No! I wouldn't agree! Why?
Look at the complexity of the ATOM.
We are still grappling with solving the atomic equation for Helium and Lithium. These are complex machines at the core?

Matter is extremely complex at the core!
Protons, Neutrons, Electrons, Positrons, muons, and hundreds of elementary particles which make up the atom.

donnffd:

Equating imaginary numbers in maths to the multiverse might be off to some degree, the multiverse is not an abstract idea, it could be reality and all we need for it to be sure is evidence direct or indirectly. Imaginary numbers doesnt need proving as long as it works in the mathematical framework.

Thats my point!, as you said,
"Imaginary numbers doesnt need proving as long as it works in the mathematical framework "
Suppose our mathematics ancient and cannot grapes with complex numbers, does it invalidate the reality of sqrt(-1) if the mathematical tool was right.

In other words, the limitations of our science (now) cannot comprehend spiritual realities. Is it a sufficient reason to then invalidate the existence of spirits?

Niflheim:
@OP,

1."However the Big Bang couldn't have resulted into order except the laws of physics existed before the Big Bang".....................You made two mistakes in this statement!!! First Error, the Universe is not ordered!!! Second error, the present laws of physics were not needed during the Big Bang, because "ALL CLASSICAL LAWS OF PHYSICS BREAK DOWN IN A QUANTUM UNIVERSE!!!

I agree with you that BEFORE the Big Bang, the laws of Physics were not in existence. There is no evidence either that the quantum laws of physics existed either. Everything about quantum universe are just speculations.

First correction, I didn't say the universe was ordered. I said that the big bang couldn't have resulted into order. Order in this sense means the consistent laws of physics interacting with matter. Example the laws behind the stability and formations of atoms.

The big bang couldn't have resulted into order because the present laws of physics were created after the big bang meaning that just st after the big bang, the laws of entropy was at work. Just from entropy alone we can see that it is impossible for Atoms to behave as we know it.

Niflheim:

2."Conversely, almost all laws of physics exist because of matter!!!...................................So are there laws that exist because of "non-matter"? I am not aware of them!!! Can you list them? Remember that energy, electricity, heat, gravity and light are all different aspects of matter!!!

We say the same thing. I wasn't implying that some kinds of physical laws exist without matter.

Niflheim:

3.Gravity is not constant!!! It is in permanent flux!!! The speed of light isn't constant either!!!

Gravity isn't a constant BUT I spoke about gravitational constant which remains a constant the last time I checked.

The speed of light as referenced is that in a vacuum.

Niflheim:

4."Would electromagnetic wave exist with a speed of light less than c? Surely life wouldn't have existed"......................Surely? Surely?!!! SURELY?!!! What is the speed of light in water? The speed of light in space? The speed of light in crystals and the speed of light in air? DON'T LIVING THINGS EXIST IN ALL THESE PLACES?!!!

You will understand that it is impossible for an electromagnetic wave to exceed the speed of light in a vacuum. If this constant isn't so, would matter stillnexist?