What is the first law of Universe ?

The Physics is first of all Vacuum.
Vacuum is :T=0K.
Once upon a time, 20 billions of years ago, all matter
(all elementary particles and all quarks and
their girlfriends- antiparticles and antiquarks,
all kinds of waves: electromagnetic, gravitational,
muons… gluons field …… etc.) – was assembled in a “single point”.
It is interesting to think about what had surrounded the “single point”.
The answer is :
But why does everyone speak about EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
common phrases rather than in specific, concrete terms?
I wonder why nobody has written down this EMPTINESS- NOTHING in
the form of a physical formula ? You see, every schoolboy knows that
is possible to express the EMPTINESS- NOTHING condition
by the formula T=0K.

Once there was a “Big Bang”.
But in what space had the Big Bang taken place
and in what space was the matter of the Big Bang distributed?
Not in T=0K?
It is clear, that there is only EMPTINESS, NOTHING, in T=0K.
Now consider that the Universe, as an absolute frame of reference is
in a condition of T = 2,7K (rests relic radiation of the Big Bang ).
But, the relic radiation is extended and in the future will change and decrease.
What temperature can this radiation reach?
Not T=0K?
Hence, if we go into the past or into the present or into the future,
we can not escape from EMPTINESS- NOTHING T=0K.
Therefore it is necessary to begin to think from T=0K.

About the theory of the “Big Bang”
is written the thick (very thick) books.
But anywhere do not write about the reason of the “Big Bang”.
Anybody does not know it.
I know.
Action, when the God opens his palm,
have named the “Big Bang”.
And action, when the God compresses his palm,
have named " a single point”.

What is the second law of Universe ?

To answer of this question we must ask:
" What geometrical and physical parameters
have the particles in Vacuum T=0K? "
The Classical physics says, that when we reach
the temperature T=0K all moving of particles
stops, and the Energy of this space is equal to zero.
It means that the space T=0K is died one.
Therefore it is impossible something to say about T=0K.
But Quantum physics says that the Energy of this space
is not equal to zero. Quantum physics says that in T=0K
“ virtual” particles exist. Why does nobody recognize the
geometrical and physical parameters of “ virtual” particles?
For example: “ Can they have volume?”
Because according to J. Charles law ( 1787),
when the temperature falls down on 1 degree
the volume decreases on 1/273. And when the
temperature reaches -273 degree the volume
disappears. The particles become flat figures.
From them the most optimal is circle: C/D=pi.
According to SRT quantum of light flies
with speed c = 1. And in this moving it cannot
have volume. It means that quantum of light
has a geometrical form of circle: C/D = 3,14….
A quantum of light is a privileged particle.
Only a light quantum has the absolute speed: c=1.
No other particle can travel with the speed: c = 1.
Other particle can travel only with the speed: s=d/t.
And I was taught at school from the first class:
that the incommensurable quantities cannot be compared.
To connect incommensurable quantities it
is similar to the decision of a problem:
“What will be if the whale will attacks the elephant?”

If quantum of light flies always only rectilinearly
with speed c=1, it is a mad one.
Quantum of light have two kinds of spins ,
as a result of which the particle attains motion.
Under the action of Planck,s spin (impuls),
which is equal to the unit ( h =1)
a quantum of light flies rectilinearly with speed (c = 1).
The geometrical form of a circle: (C/D = 3,14).
A quantum of light behaves as a particle.
Under the action of Goudsmit-Uhlenbeck’s spin ,
( h = h / 2pi) a quantum of light rotates around of its diameter
with the speed more of light quanta : c>1
and is known as electron.
The geometrical form of a circle is transformed into a sphere.
This kind of movement is described by Lorentz’s transformations .
In this action the wave properties of light quantum are shown.
The dualism of a particle becomes clear.
The paradox of dualism disappears completely.

The first law of the universe is that there are NO PHYSICAL LAWS.

You must understand that we are locked up in our languages. We can never know past what we can express and describe. So no matter what the final theory is, it will always be just another description, just another configuration of always the same knowledge. I mean what do you expect ? That someone will say the cause of the big bang is alpha, and the cause of alpha is beta, so ? what changes ? what more knowledge can you ever get ? Aside from the fact that I think the big bang theory is false, but this is not the problem; the problem is that we think some other description or explanation can possibly change what we know.

Actually all of science is just a subset of how are brain is hardwired. When the technological singularity will start to change the way our brain is wired, how it organizes information, etc. then science itself will be a joke. We will be able to create any simulated (which in the end is equivalent to “real”, whatever “real” means, which it means absolutely nothing!) universe with any laws.

Science has many branches.
One of this branches have name " tautology."
It seems ,you are from this school.

The planets travel without friction in vacuum,
it means the vacuum is an empty space.
The light waves are transverse waves therefore
it means the vacuum must be as firm as steel
How quantum of light can move in such
unintelligibly vacuum?

The common answer is:
The point is that light consists actually of two waves,
an electric wave and a magnetic wave.
According to Maxwell’s equations, both induce and thus
maintain each other mutually, and thus there is no need
for a medium and the light can propagate in a vacuum.

I also studied this conception 50 years ago.
But …50 years have pasted…
And now I cannot take the school conception as true one.
Why ? Because:
I think it is impossible that electric and magnetic
waves are existed at the same time. Between them
very short rupture of time must be.
Then in some moment light will be an electrical wave,
and in another moment a magnetic wave will be .
But this electrical waves must be transverse waves,
it means, that vacuum is as firm as steel.
Unless, am I wrong ?
It is 100% right that " an electric wave and a magnetic wave,
according to Maxwell’s equations, both induce and thus
maintain each other mutually". But this statement
is right only according to classic ( macro) electrodynamics.
When Maxwell’s electrodynamics is used in the microworld,
then it needs to take an idea of " quantum of light ".
It is not correct to use common word “light” in the quantum theory.
The word “light” is possible to use on a beach, in a market
in every another place, but not in the quantum theory.
Here it is necessary to say " quantum of light ".
And now everybody knows that light quanta is
a wave and particle at the same time.
And when somebody says : " that light consists actually
of two waves, an electric wave and a magnetic wave " ,
He forgets photon as a particle. The usage of only waves
abilities is not enough to explain photon’s moving.
The picture of photon acting is not full.
If we want to see the whole picture of photon’s moving
we must imagine that photon in its moving jumps
from an electric wave to a magnetic wave and back,
from a magnetic wave to an electric wave and back,
and back…
I see my explanation is difficult.
Maybe it is better and simpler to imagine the photon
driving on a bicycle when one wheel is an electric wave
and another wheel is a magnetic wave.
I only want to say that to use sentences :
“ light quanta is wave and particle at the same time”,
“ light consists actually of two waves, an electric wave
and a magnetic wave in its moving in a vacuum “ is not correct.
Imitating to some methodology.

There are birds who can walk, fly and swim.
The birds who don’t have one of these abilities
are not birds.
/ According to complementarity and the
Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics./
============ …

M-theory it seems can neatly describe the laws of our universe but to do so requires a multitude of universes which are dynamic in nature.
A conundrum for many cosmologists.

Yeah, well. If I were to take off my scientist hat and put on my (much shoddier) metaphysician hat, I would speculate that if there was such a thing as a first law, it would be change.

the first law of the Universe is that " something comes from absolutely something , absolutely "

and that " absolute nothing begets absolutely nothing "

Breasts. Then the termite colony syndrome, recycled body til death and then the same all over again forever.


… what?

have any relevance

bbc? define . so that not only I but others might know.


so Kesh your above responses to this thread are irrelevant to the subject of this thread. and are meaningless.

therefore I will ignor them.

get with it, only breasts know. errr! to find out you need to communicate with a pair through secret lingustics. go: derrrr… for 30 seconds and go cross eye’d. this opens the password and allows you to clear the slate and state again, understanding table tennis rules an tha’.


I’m not " with it " so now in plain english explain to those who are not " with it " me for beginners , what you are getting at.

unless those that are " with it " have really no idea of what they mean either.

In college, a teacher presented us with a novel idea. Instead of reducing living things to the unliving, why not see the behaviour of non-rational things as analogous to that of the living.

On this note, let me suggest that the first law of the universe is love, to be one with another – which gravity seems to do in attracting bodies to one another and in circular motion which motion seems to do less perfectly. It’s my thesis that even inanimate things imitate God in their own way.

The first law is love. The last law is love.

Biologicals seem to develop self-love as well, but that seems less universal.


An old professor of mine used to say,
that anyone who can answer the question:
" What is the origin of inertia? "
would win a Nobel Prize.

Or: Nothing comes from nothing?

Do. [size=59](or do not).[/size]

You know, thinking about that question is challenging my monist theory of the universe.