Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

[GarryS]

If the universe was smaller than a proton before the big bang, can we say that the question of the cause of bigbang is meaningless (i.e. it happened without any logic)?

I say this because sub atomic particles keep on popping in and popping out of existence without any underlying cause. Or is science missing something? Is it that this quantum randomness may have some hidden causes ( i.e. cause and effect relationships)?

 

[granpa]

asking what is 1/x at x=0 is also meaningless but that doesn't mean that math is "without any logic".

 

[Naty1]

can we say that the question of the cause of bigbang is meaningless (i.e. it happened without any logic)?...

atomic particles keep on popping in and popping out of existence without any underlying cause.

quantum mechancs provides a "cause"...quantum fluctuations...for virtual particles...

so I disagree with your premise and your conclusion.


Try reading here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

and here :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuations

where the mathematic underpinning is mentioned:

In the modern view, energy is always conserved, but the eigenstates of the Hamiltonian (energy observable) are not the same as (i.e. the Hamiltonian doesn't commute with) the particle number operators.

But so far there is no proof, no incontrovertible evidence, no consensus, on exactly what caused the big bang. I don't think anyone has a theory yet on whether virtual particles actually "caused" the big bang...

 

[bill alsept]

The size of the universe before the Big Bang is only speculated no one really knows how big or small it was. The cause of the Big Bang or inflation would not be dictated by the size of that singularity. Everything has a cause so if particles are popping in and out of existence (quantum fluctuation) then there is a cause. And there is much speculation it.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the universe was smaller than a proton before the big bang, can we say that the question of the cause of bigbang is meaningless (i.e. it happened without any logic)?

I say this because sub atomic particles keep on popping in and popping out of existence without any underlying cause. Or is science missing something? Is it that this quantum randomness may have some hidden causes ( i.e. cause and effect relationships)?

This is actually very much in line with some popular theories of the origin of the BB. It is speculated that, indeed, it erupted from some sort of proto-quantum-fluctuation state that normally collapses back on itself almost instantly - like virtual particle pairs do - but in this case, for some reason did not collapse back to nothing, and instead expanded rapidly, creating the entire universe.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

If the universe was smaller than a proton before the big bang, can we say that the question of the cause of bigbang is meaningless (i.e. it happened without any logic)?

If the Universe is spatially flat and has infinite mass and energy then the OU may have been smaller than a proton but the entire U would still have been infinite. At least that is how I understand it.

 

[DaveC426913]

If the Universe is spatially flat and has infinite mass and energy then the OU may have been smaller than a proton but the entire U would still have been infinite. At least that is how I understand it.

Those are some big 'if's. Why would it have infinite mass and energy?

 

[phinds]

This is actually very much in line with some popular theories of the origin of the BB. It is speculated that, indeed, it erupted from some sort of proto-quantum-fluctuation state that normally collapses back on itself almost instantly - like virtual particle pairs do - but in this case, for some reason did not collapse back to nothing, and instead expanded rapidly, creating the entire universe.

I take this two ways, Dave. First, I think things DO have reasons, even if we don't understand them. Second, in QM, a valid reason is "s*** happens".

 

[GarryS]

I take this two ways, Dave. First, I think things DO have reasons, even if we don't understand them. Second, in QM, a valid reason is "s*** happens".

Suppose the reason for expansion is found as told by dave, what would be the reason for that reason. And so on...

Is origin of of this universe really that simple a matter? Or we have to retrace our steps infinitely?

 

[DaveC426913]

Suppose the reason for expansion is found as told by dave, what would be the reason for that reason. And so on...

Is origin of of this universe really that simple a matter? Or we have to retrace our steps infinitely?

It is called "First Cause". And we may never know the answer.

 

[GarryS]

It is called "First Cause". And we may never know the answer.

Your "first cause" seems to be above reasoning and science even, that it does not require any "cause" for its occurenece. I think we should shun science and start believing in magic.LOL

 

[Naty1]

Upon rereading, I see I should have also said I agree with this part of the OP:

... is science missing something?

 

[granpa]

its not that we can't find the answer.
its that we are asking th ewrong question.

asking what is the cause of the first cause is simply a meaningless question.

 

[DaveC426913]

asking what is the cause of the first cause is simply a meaningless question.

I agree our idea of cause and effect may have to be rethought when it comes to the origin of the universe, but simply asking what caused the BB is not meaningless, in my view.

 

[phinds]

... asking what is the cause of the first cause is simply a meaningless question.

I think there MAY be meaningless questions, but that certainly isn't one of them. I agree w/ what Dave said.

 

[bill alsept]

I agree our idea of cause and effect may have to be rethought when it comes to the origin of the universe, but simply asking what caused the BB is not meaningless, in my view.

Yeh, there is no reason we can't figure out what caused things in our universe but before and beyond are another thing, Who knows

 

[elegysix]

Ever heard of deep space imaging? If you believe that at some time in the past, our universe was a point which exploded and you know that light travels at a finite speed, then logically, the deeper you look into space, the further back in time you are seeing. Therefore, upon the deepest glance into space, we would inevitably have to see the big bang from within it. Either we are seeing the ultra-dense universe in that time, or we would be seeing outside our universe. The latter is simply impossible by our definition of the universe.

the question I wonder is why haven't we seen something like this. Perhaps things are not so cut and dried as we assume they are.

 

[granpa]

asking what is the cause of the first cause is simply a meaningless question.

I think there MAY be meaningless questions, but that certainly isn't one of them. I agree w/ what Dave said.

I am reminded of the kid who told the pizza man that he wasnt that hungry so he should only cut the pizza into 6 pieces rather than 8.

it makes no difference how you cut it, its still a meaningless question.

if the first cause had a cause then it wouldn't be the first cause.

we may ask what the first cause was but we can't ask what caused it.

 

[DaveC426913]

...upon the deepest glance into space, we would inevitably have to see the big bang from within it...

the question I wonder is why haven't we seen something like this.

We do.

It's called the cosmic microwave background radiation or surface of last scattering. This is the actual remnants of the Big Bang.

 

[elegysix]

Interesting. didn't know those were associated

 

[NIKHEL RAINA]

not anyone seeing when universe is forming. It is the imagination of big bang which is correct w.r.t all the theories of science that is why to put question what is the first cause is baseless

 

[NIKHEL RAINA]

not anyone seeing when universe is forming. It is the imagination of big bang which is correct w.r.t all the theories of science that is why to put question what is the first cause is baseless

It is same as the question which one arrive first?
An egg or a hen

 

[DaveC426913]

It is same as the question which one arrive first?
An egg or a hen

The egg came first.

The planet's first ever chicken was born from an egg, which was laid by a proto-chickenosaurus.

 

[Chronos]

Science deliberately sidesteps the 'first cause' issue because it belongs to philosophy. Science is very good at 'what' and 'how', but, not 'why'.

 

[elegysix]

we may ask what the first cause was but we can't ask what caused it.

Who said there had to be a 'first cause'?

'First cause' is a contradiction to Newton's third law. If there is an effect - big bang, there must be a cause. And there must have been a cause to cause the big bang, and so forth. It is an unending question of why's, the only conclusions are that this reasoning is false, or there is no 'beginning' and therefore an infinite string of causes.

This law is the basis for all our logic - or our logic is the basis for this law - either way, it is our only way of understanding things - which is in terms of 'cause and effect'.

If A, then B... if B, then C... and if B, then we can say C will occur, and that A must have preceded B if nothing else causes B.

Either this logic holds infinitely and there is no beginning, or our logic is flawed.

'Since the universe exists, it must have been created, and something must have caused that to create it...' - to deny this question is to deny any other question based on the logic of cause and effect.

There simply cannot be special cases in this logic. It is either true, or it is not. There are no exceptions.

Your pizza scenario is irrelevant. Clearly, those are two independent things. However, the creation of the universe and the cause of that cause are not independent - by definition one effects the other.


I would say more about a theory which supports the big bang and evidence for it, but argues it is not the 'creation', but that is for a different thread.

 

[NIKHEL RAINA]

British researchers say the chicken must have
come first as the formation of eggs is only
possible thanks to a protein found in the
chicken’s ovaries. ‘It had long been suspected that the egg came
first but now we have the scientific proof that
shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said
Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who
worked with counterparts at Warwick
University.

 

[phinds]

I am reminded of the kid who told the pizza man that he wasnt that hungry so he should only cut the pizza into 6 pieces rather than 8.

it makes no difference how you cut it, its still a meaningless question.

if the first cause had a cause then it wouldn't be the first cause.

we may ask what the first cause was but we can't ask what caused it.

I was not talking about a "first cause", as I consider that to be purely philosophy and I agee w/ you about it. I was talking about what happened at t=0, which we MAY some day understand.

 

[DaveC426913]

British researchers say the chicken must have
come first as the formation of eggs is only
possible thanks to a protein found in the
chicken’s ovaries. ‘It had long been suspected that the egg came
first but now we have the scientific proof that
shows that in fact the chicken came first,’ said
Dr Colin Freeman, from Sheffield University, who
worked with counterparts at Warwick
University.

Your British researchers are kidding around (or they are fools).

Eggs were around long before chickens were. Dinosaurs laid eggs. The ancestors of the chicken laid eggs.

 

[granpa]

the first cause IS what happened at t=0

 

[phinds]

the first cause IS what happened at t=0

I think of "first cause" as something which by definition has nothing before it. We do NOT know that about what happened at t=0 and that is why I think it's a perfectly reasonable question to ask what DID happen at t=0. You MAY be right that it turns out there was NOT anything before that and whatever it is WAS the first cause, but until that's discovered, scientists will keep looking.

You can give up if you want to.

 

[granpa]

if there was anything 'before' t=0 then it wouldn't be t=0

 

[phinds]

if there was anything 'before' t=0 then it wouldn't be t=0

It would be t=0 in terms of our current theory. I agree that it would, if it were discovered that something comes before it, not be t=0 in any absolute sense.

Our current theories just break down at t=0. That is NOT evidence that what we call t=0 was an absolute beginning (it MIGHT be, but it might not)

When I say "t=0" I am using it in what I believe to be the currently accepted meaning in physcs which is "that place where our theories break down but which would have a time value of zero if carried backward from what our current theories DO know"

 

[elegysix]

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a 'first cause' and an absolute time of 't=0'.

As you are including it in scientific theories, you must have evidence which justifies this assumption. What is that evidence?
If things appear to come from a point, fair enough - but you cannot just assume that means it was at 't=0', or even that there is such a thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

The problem is that you are assuming there must be a 'first cause' and an absolute time of 't=0'.

Inasmuch as our understanding of our universe is that it is built upon cause and effect, any event we imagine we can always ask 'what preceded that event?' That is a good assumption.

If there were such an event that did not have a cause preceding it, the onus would be upon you (the royal you) to demonstrate a plausible mechanism by which this might be so.

 

[granpa]

instead of saying that events are 'caused' by previous events
we could say that every event was destined to happen anyway
and only the form the event takes is 'influenced' by previous events.

the first event would not have been influenced by any previous event
but there is no reason to think it would need to be.