How Can the 1st Law of Thermodyamics be Correct?

[Spyman]

Let's get to the crux of the matter.

The "crux" is that we currently lack knowledge of the creation/ignition/start of the Universe.

 

My main goal was to correct your misinterpretation of the mainstream thought of The Big Bang.

 

Either energy has always existed; was created during the birth of the Universe; or was brought about in "another reality" in which our logic, causality and laws do not and cannot apply.

Yes, either way is possible.

 

As I've said, if it has always existed, what determined the arbitrary amount of energy that is contained in the Universe? Why not just enough energy for one particle to form... or enough energy for a Universe 10^500 larger?

 

For that matter... what determined any of the constants and laws?

 

I believe it is naive to claim that every constant, every law, and even the amount of energy in the Universe has always existed exactly the way it is today.

They are good questions and it is naive to think Universe is constant, AFAIK it is expanding.

 

But we don't have the answers right now, there are several alternative ideas where the Universe might have changed during the ignition phase, or might have been created as it was, or ...

 

Actually, the post I was responding to implied that. Although, I believe it to be the case as well.

And swansont said: "If the big bang represents such a change, then energy would not need to be conserved during that event.", where he was responding to you. (Please note, it begins with "If".)

 

If you propose a model where it's assumed that energy is created during the initial state of the Universe, you can't demand swansont to explain how, it's your model and you have to provide the answers.

 

 

That we have never observed a violation of the first law has to include the disclaimer that we can only look back (AFAIK) as far as the beginning of the universe.

Yes, our observations is limited, we can't even see the beginning, only to ~380 000 years after.

(With predictions from high energy physics we can extrapolate back to ~10^-32 seconds.)

 

One can argue that the big bang breaks the aforementioned symmetry. I know there have been investigations into trying to discern the state of things before the big bang, or see if that's even possible, but I'm not sure of the status of them.

Here is one report Martin posted recently: -> http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28372

 

Given the evidence of which I am aware, I think it's an unsupported extrapolation to say that energy is conserved over that boundary, though I'm happy to learn more on the topic.

Yes, and thats why I said: "there is more reason to belive", it is my personal opinion...

 

But I wouldn't call it "unsupported", there is more reason to trust old models so far observed to be correct, instead of new models not yet observed to be correct. I would say that current observations is in favour of my opinion.

(When we get one accepted reasonable model thereof, I might have to revise my opinion thereafter. )

 

 

It is based on empirical obeservation, they have tried to see if they could destroy matter, but they can't from that also the Law of Definite Porportions:

Matter and antimatter can be created from energy and matter can be transformed to energy.

 

"Law of Definite Porportions" - Never heard of it, please provide sources.

 

A compound always contains elements in certain definite proportions, never in any other combination; also called the law of constant composition

"law of constant composition" - Never heard of this one either.

 

You can't just make things up, people are not going to take you seriously.

 

Your definition of theory isn't quite right, because it has several definitions.

I said: "In science, a theory", it might not have been a detailed description, but it sufficed to make my point.

 

Now, did you or did you not understand my point ?