- #36
Chalnoth
Science Advisor
- 6,197
- 449
Some symmetries had to break for these things. Others did not. But this just comes down to the weak anthropic principle: if some symmetries didn't break, we wouldn't be here. But we shouldn't expect symmetries to break that aren't necessary for our existence, such as spatial symmetry.leonstavros said:Symmetry had to break in order for the big bang to occur.
Symmetry had to break in order for the universe to have formed stars, etc.
In any case, the fact remains that spatial symmetry is not a broken symmetry (that is, the laws of physics are the same everywhere), and thus we have a constant speed of light. It is simply easier for the universe to remain this way than to change, contrary to your misuse of entropy.
Oh, now you're just being absurd! This is no more proof of the "breakdown" of physical law than snow or trees are! Far from being a proof of some "breakdown" of physical law, these things are quite satisfactorily explained by entirely physical means. With inflation, if we have a scalar field with the right sort of potential, then it predicts all of the major properties of inflation (including rapid, accelerated expansion followed by reheating and rapid deceleration). With the more recent expansion, a small but non-zero vacuum energy appears to be the best explanation.leonstavros said:Physical laws do break down. How else can you explain the instant inflation of the universe and then slowing down and then speeding up again. If that doesn't prove programming what does?
Granted, there are still a number of unknowns, but there is nothing that even hints at anything but purely physical processes in action.