My Math Forum (http://mymathforum.com/math-forums.php)
-   Physics (http://mymathforum.com/physics/)
-   -   Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists. (http://mymathforum.com/physics/29184-simple-prove-why-our-universe-natures-laws-exists.html)

 karel vdr July 31st, 2012 12:04 AM

Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

It is easy to prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.
The prove is given in 3 simple steps:

Step 1
The zero vector exists.

Prove
At least one of both expressions (1 or 2) is true, and both lead to the same conclusion. => the conclusion is always true.

Expression 1: Nothing exists (a)
nothing = zero vector (b) (note: the zero vector equals zero times any vector = the absence of any non-zero vector)
(a and b) => zero vector exists

Expression 2: Something exists.
Get a vector v from an existing object.
=> v exists (a)
v = v + zero vector (b)
(a and b) => (v + zero vector) exists
=> zero vector exists

Step 2
zero vector exists
=>
all that equals the zero vector also exists

example
v1 + v2 + v3 = zero vector
=> v1 + v2 + v3 exists
=> v1, v2, v3 exists

Note
Compare it with 5 (=3 + 2) apples exists => 3 apples and 2 apples exists. But 0 apples only equals 0 apples, 0 pears, 0 chickens etc. The difference with vectors is that vectors in an opposite direction (negative) exists, while we don't know negative apples.

Step 3
In step 2 we have seen that an infinite number of vector combinations exists. This step explains why there are natureďż˝s laws.

Most vectors (physical quantities) used in nature are more than the simple vectors we use in the lessons geometry (x,y,z).
In fact they impose laws of nature.

Example
Consider an electrical field vector E.
You can see hereunder (or check your high school physics books) that an electrical field vector implies a lot more than just a simple vector.

We consider everything on a x-axis. Therefore we use Ex, Fx, etc.

. Ex = Fx/q
. Fx = m . Ax
. Ax = dVx/dt
. Vx = dx/dt

With:
. Ex: electric field (N/C)
. Fx: force (N)
. Ax: acceleration (m/sďż˝)
. Vx: speed (m/s)
. x: position on an x-axis (m)
. q: charge (C) ; (C: Coulomb)
. m: mass (kg)

The fact that an electric field vector is defined by formulas referring to other vectors has a lot of consequences.

1. That the following exists:
. Fx: forces (N)
. Ax: accelerations (m/sďż˝)
. Vx: speeds (m/s)
. x: positions on an x-axis (m)
. q: charges (C) ; (C: Coulomb)
. m: masses (kg)
Without this, an electric field cannot exists. (because of the definition of electric field)

2. That the following rules (laws of nature) are respected:
. Ex = Fx/q
. Fx = m . Ax
. Ax = dVx/dt
. Vx = dx/dt

3. That there is a continues space. (in case differentials are used)
Differentials (dVx, dx, dt) does not exist in discontinuous points. They assume a continuous space.

Conclusion
So in addition to the rule

v1 + v2 + ďż˝ + vn = zero vector
=> v1 + v2 + ďż˝ + vn exists

we have to ensure that the 3 requirements above are satisfied (for each vector v1, v2, ďż˝ , vn).

So how do we calculate a collection of elements that actually exists? (equals the existing zero vector and where all extra requirements are satisfied)
The answer is simple.
Just use the laws of physics like we learned on school or university. The only extra condition is that the sum of all the vectors should equal the zero vector.

So it is easy to understand that there should be a collection of elements that precisely match with our universe, with precisely the same laws of physics as in our universe. Just describe our complete universe with the classic physics. To make sure that the sum of all vectors equals the zero vector, it might also be required to consider a part of the universe that is not directly visible to us.

closure
When we just write down what inevitable exists, then this leads almost immediately to the conclusion that all kind of universes should exist. This is precisely what we expect when using some common sense. Our universe exists, and it is obvious that there should be a reason for this.

 MarkFL July 31st, 2012 12:28 AM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

I sincerely doubt that a classical model will tell us why the universe exists. We must consider the quantization of space-time and energy and all the implications therein. The why may never be answered by physics, only the how. But, we can only speculate at this point until physicists can solve the problem that plagued Einstein...

 mathman July 31st, 2012 03:05 PM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

How about using Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum.). We know the universe exists because we are here to think about it. Nature's laws are here also.

 agentredlum July 31st, 2012 10:32 PM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

I prefer, 'to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction'.

'I think therefore I am' is very tempting because it elevates the position of humanity in nature, but does it really explain anything?

:D

 mathbalarka July 31st, 2012 11:24 PM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by karel vdr It is easy to prove why our universe and nature’s laws exists.
It is easy?! it is EASY?!?! It is IMPOSSIBLE to prove that universe and nature's law exists using current knowledge on physics, mathematics and logic.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by mathman How about using Descartes (Cogito, ergo sum.). We know the universe exists because we are here to think about it. Nature's laws are here also.
Agree.

Quote:
 Originally Posted by agentredlum but does it really explain anything?
Maybe nothing but still it's a very logical statement, don't you think?

 agentredlum August 1st, 2012 01:22 AM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

What about a rock? A rock cannot say or think 'I think therefore I am' does a rock exist?

If I say 'I think therefore I am' ... time passes and there is no record of me or my thoughts... where is the proof that I existed?

Even for conscious beings it only works for the here and now but it's still better than nothing because most other phenomena in the universe are AGAINST human ego, Descartes's statement is in favor of human ego so I appreciate it very much, I just wish someone could do more...

I think Newton did more when he said 'to every action there is an equal and opposite reaction' but this doesn't do much for the human ego in my opinion, but is more true than cogito ergo sum.
:D

 mathman August 1st, 2012 02:00 PM

re: Simple prove why our universe and nature's laws exists.

Rocks can't prove anything. You need to think to construct a proof.

 All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:43 PM.