Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

[DaveC426913]

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.

Except that destiny is not a scientifically valid term. The obvious question to be asked of course is: if an event was "destined" to happen, what rules of the universe enforce this?

 

[Cosmo Novice]

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

Maybe this is an unfounded assumption on my part. I always perceived a Universe with curvature would be finite spatially and therefore contain a finite mass and energy. A spatially flat Universe with 0 curvature by its nature is open and unbounded - therefore is spatially infinite and containing infinite mass and infinite energy.

That is my understanding of the contested topology.

My underlying point was that if the Universe is infinite now then I think it must have always been infinite. Hopefully that makes my point a little better - if I am misunderstanding anything then please point it out.

 

[elegysix]

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.

It is better to assume what we have always observed, than to assume anything else. And we have always observed cause and effect.

Cause and effect is an assumption yes, but it works - like gravity. No one truly knows why, but it is there and it is unrelenting; It does not matter what we call it or how we think it works - it will still be there, and it has been.

If cause and effect were not true, we would never have been able to decipher what was happening around us - if we would even exist, at that.

Because everything we know which is related obeys cause and effect, it does not make sense to assume otherwise. The cause of the big bang is, by definition of cause, related.

Given what we know, assuming otherwise would be like discovering a planet and assuming it does not have gravity. It would be unfounded, illogical.

Cause is to action as mass is to gravity.
They are intrinsic properties of each other, we do not know why, but we know that they exist together.

It simply does not make sense to assume something we have never observed.

 

[Pitstopped]

I can not wrap my mind around an effect without a cause. I have never observed this, and to my knowledge no one has ever proved there was an effect without a cause...ever.

T=0 not only assumes there was an effect without cause (because the cause would have been before T=0) therefore being time, but what was our Universe made of? Nothing?

Logic tells you it has to be made of something and that the "something" had to be availible before T=0. To suggest there is a T=0 is saying something can be made from nothing.

 

[phinds]

I can not wrap my mind around an effect without a cause. I have never observed this, and to my knowledge no one has ever proved there was an effect without a cause...ever.

T=0 not only assumes there was an effect without cause (because the cause would have been before T=0) therefore being time, but what was our Universe made of? Nothing?

Logic tells you it has to be made of something and that the "something" had to be availible before T=0. To suggest there is a T=0 is saying something can be made from nothing.

Quantum Mechanics is going to make your head hurt, I promise. Maybe not as much as it makes MY head hurt, but probably quite a bit.

EDIT: by the way, welcome to the forum.

 

[Pitstopped]

Then, is "nothing" even possible?

If it is, how was something ever made?

If it isn't, where did something ever come from?

Seems impossible to know. And despite what anyone has ever written, no matter how technical, scientific, theological, logical, anything... it has never been explained. If you think it has, you are mistaken.

Is it so hard to say "I DON"T KNOW? AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE."

 

[DaveC426913]

Seems impossible to know. And despite what anyone has ever written, no matter how technical, scientific, theological, logical, anything... it has never been explained. If you think it has, you are mistaken.

Is it so hard to say "I DON"T KNOW? AND NEITHER DOES ANYONE ELSE."

Not sure why you're getting all bent.

What you have stated is what every serious scientist agrees upon. We do not know.

 

[phinds]

Then, is "nothing" even possible?

If it is, how was something ever made?

You might find it interesting to read about quantum fluctuations.

 

[Pitstopped]

It is interesting and I don't understand it all, but... for quantum fluctuation to even exist there has to be "something." For it is a fluctuation. (a change not something from nothing like some people want to attribute)

 

[Pitstopped]

I am sorry if I seemed all bent. I am not at all.

It is interesting to read responses that try to explain origins, time and space questions and the like.

If anyone really knew they would be the most famous person in history. Not that I think we shouldn't keep trying to learn and understand, and debate helps us learn.

 

[phinds]

... it is a fluctuation. (a change not something from nothing ... )

Good point, but I think the "something from nothing" in the "normal" case (unlike some theories of the big bang) means "there's nothing there in space, and then temporarily, due to quantum fluctuation, there IS something there". SPACE is there but the particles aren't ... and then the ARE ... and then the aren't (unless they are near a black hole, in which case ... read about Hawking radiation).

The BB is different because of the possiblity that there really WAS nothing there ... I don' t think too much about the singularity because, first it makes my head hurt even more than other things in QM and second, nobody else has any idea what happened either.

By the way, you think YOU got a bit torqued about this stuff ... when I first started reading about it I used to LITERALLY go off screaming obscenities at how nonsensical it all is. I eventurally got used to the fact that my idea of "sensical" and the universe's idea of "sensical" don't always have much in common.

 

[Pitstopped]

Ok, good explanation. Can you imagine if there was really NOTHING and there was a BB from nothing? Doesn't seem possible, but neither does no beginning or end of matter and or time. Yes... my head hurts.

 

[phinds]

Yes... my head hurts.

Yep, join the club

 

[Chronos]

We know our models fail at the BB singularity, as well as at the singularity of an 'ordinary' black hole. We never be solve either mystery, but, a working theory of quantum gravity would probably help a lot.

 

[csmcmillion]

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)?

> Or is science missing something?

No - but I think the OP is. Causation is a concept that's based on time. Prior to the BB there was no space, and no time. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about causation.

 

[phinds]

> Or is science missing something?

No - but I think the OP is. Causation is a concept that's based on time. Prior to the BB there was no space, and no time. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about causation.

Actually, that's not strictly true. What is true is that we have no idea what was going on at what we call "t=0" and yes, we DO say that based on our current model space and time started at t=0. BUT ... the model really breaks down at t=0. Maybe someday we'll have a model that doesn't and you can make that kind of assertion with more authority (or not have to, depending on what the answer turns out to be).

 

[Pitstopped]

> Or is science missing something?

No - but I think the OP is. Causation is a concept that's based on time. Prior to the BB there was no space, and no time. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about causation.

This is what I mean by my earlier comment about finding it amusing to read these replies. Another person saying they know what was there in the beginning (even if they say it was nothing)

Is it so hard to comprehend that "you don't know, and no one does?"

 

[elegysix]

I agree that I don't know, but I have to assume that there is not a first cause, nor t=0, because our logic and all our knowledge is built upon everything having cause and effect.

> Causation is a concept that's based on time. Prior to the BB there was no space, and no time. Thus, it's meaningless to talk about causation.

So the first cause, which caused itself, created causation in the process?
Does that make any sense?

 

[Cosmo Novice]

I agree that I don't know, but I have to assume that there is not a first cause, nor t=0, because our logic and all our knowledge is built upon everything having cause and effect.




So the first cause, which caused itself, created causation in the process?
Does that make any sense?

It does make a bit of sense. However it only makes sense judging from the current metric and laws governing the existing Universe. Without time - or time as we experience it in the given metric of our universe - the fundamental laws of reality cannot be attributed to any given event. Cause and effect are very much embedded laws in our reality, I don't think we can say they are fundamental prior to the beggining of reality. If reality does not exist then cause/effect have no meaning.

 

[elegysix]

Cause and effect have always held for everything. Even if things appear to be expanding from a point, that does not imply there was a t=0 or first cause. There is no scientific foundation for such a conclusion.

Remember this law? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is fundamental in physics. To suggest a creation, would be to contradict one of the most fundamental rules we have.

The only logical conclusion we may draw is that: If things are expanding from a region, things must have been contracting to that region prior to its expansion. Or that it was in some stable higher energy density state, which became unstable and then expanded.

Either way, there is no scientific reason for assuming it was at 't=0' and the 'first cause'. To further that, there is no foundation for believing a 't=0' or 'first cause' even exists, aside from religion/philosophy. Which are not scientific by the way.

'Our reality' has existed for as long as we have known and can observe. There is nothing observable in 'our reality' which suggests it did not exist, and therefore the idea that 'our reality' did not exist, cannot be supported scientifically.

BB is the result of observing that all bodies in space are expanding from a region. We have no way of measuring space itself, and there is no reason to believe space or time would be expanding just because the bodies within it are.
Space and time must extend infinitely - if they did not, you would be implying that we would 'hit a wall' going far enough out into space. And that is illogical.

 

[GarryS]

Cause and effect have always held for everything. Even if things appear to be expanding from a point, that does not imply there was a t=0 or first cause. There is no scientific foundation for such a conclusion.

Remember this law? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is fundamental in physics. To suggest a creation, would be to contradict one of the most fundamental rules we have.

The only logical conclusion we may draw is that: If things are expanding from a region, things must have been contracting to that region prior to its expansion. Or that it was in some stable higher energy density state, which became unstable and then expanded.

Either way, there is no scientific reason for assuming it was at 't=0' and the 'first cause'. To further that, there is no foundation for believing a 't=0' or 'first cause' even exists, aside from religion/philosophy. Which are not scientific by the way.

'Our reality' has existed for as long as we have known and can observe. There is nothing observable in 'our reality' which suggests it did not exist, and therefore the idea that 'our reality' did not exist, cannot be supported scientifically.

BB is the result of observing that all bodies in space are expanding from a region. We have no way of measuring space itself, and there is no reason to believe space or time would be expanding just because the bodies within it are.
Space and time must extend infinitely - if they did not, you would be implying that we would 'hit a wall' going far enough out into space. And that is illogical.

WHY IS EVERYBODY BOTHERED ABOUT TIME?

Let’s consider the following:

A body moves from point A to B.

In the meantime, hands of a clock move by some distance and the caesium atom also vibrates much. We say that time has passed when the body moves from A to B.

Actually, no time has passed but only motion has happened in the clock as well as the atom. We are just describing one motion (of the body) in respect of other motions (of the clock or of the caesium atom). It’s very surprising that the other motions (of clock and atom) are called time, when in reality they are simply motions.

To my mind Time is just a mental construct that finds much use in equations and so it is considered to be a reality. However, certain unification equations ( of all the forces) find time to disappear from them.

So, I think we should not talk about anything like T=0 when talking about origin of universe because time doesn’t seem to exist.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Cause and effect have always held for everything. Even if things appear to be expanding from a point, that does not imply there was a t=0 or first cause. There is no scientific foundation for such a conclusion.

True - in the current metric and fundamental laws acsribed to our Universe, however; you are ascribing this attribute to a priori - I would argue that cause/effect are not background independent.

Remember this law? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is fundamental in physics. To suggest a creation, would be to contradict one of the most fundamental rules we have.

Theres is no conservation of energy at cosmological scales - energy momentum conservation in GR is something entirely different. Although I am no expert this is how I understand it.

BB is the result of observing that all bodies in space are expanding from a region. We have no way of measuring space itself, and there is no reason to believe space or time would be expanding just because the bodies within it are.
Space and time must extend infinitely - if they did not, you would be implying that we would 'hit a wall' going far enough out into space. And that is illogical.

This section doesn't make much sense - to "hit a wall" would require a pre-existing space. This is not how BBT works. Space "must extend indefinetely" would only be true in a spatially flat topology and even if space did not extend indefinetely and was finite it would not require a wall! It would be embedded in higher dimensions and would not have a wall or edge.

 

[DaveC426913]

Remember this law? Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

This is fundamental in physics. To suggest a creation, would be to contradict one of the most fundamental rules we have.

So is the law of gravity. Surely you are not suggesting that all our laws apply unilaterally, even at a time when space time did not exist as we know it.

As fundamental as conservation of energy is, it not as fundamental as the creation of he very universe in which those laws come into being.

 

[elegysix]

You are all missing or avoiding the point I wish to make. I will write this out as simply, and as directly as I can.

I will tell you my conclusion, and my basis for that conclusion.

I ask that you provide the basis for your conclusion, not just speculation and arguments against mine.
I ask that you state a logical basis for your conclusion, grounded in observable evidence and scientific principles which are well known.

My conclusion:
There is no scientific basis for the concept of creation.
Therefore, creation cannot be part of any scientific theory - such as BB.

My basis:
Conservation of energy.
Newtons third law: cause and effect.

These principles have been observed, are well known, and have proven to be universal and infallible so far.
Everything we have ever observed has obeyed these principles.
Because of that fact, I claim that BB is not creation, nor is creation possible, as it would violate both of these principles.

Your turn.
Do not use reasoning based upon different universes or things which extend beyond ours, unless you provide observable evidence that such a thing exists.

 

[phinds]

My conclusion:
There is no scientific basis for the idea that our universe was created.
Therefore, creation cannot be part of any scientific theory - such as BB.

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

[elegysix]

As Carl Sagan was fond of saying, absense of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Dude... Did you read anything I wrote? that conclusion is not based on lack of evidence. That conclusion is based on the fact that it contradicts two fundamental laws, when everything we have observed always obeys them. I thought I made that pretty clear.

 

[Pitstopped]

You are all missing or avoiding the point I wish to make. I will write this out as simply, and as directly as I can.

I will tell you my conclusion, and my basis for that conclusion.

I ask that you provide the basis for your conclusion, not just speculation and arguments against mine.
I ask that you state a logical basis for your conclusion, grounded in observable evidence and scientific principles which are well known.

My conclusion:
There is no scientific basis for the concept of creation.
Therefore, creation cannot be part of any scientific theory - such as BB.

My Conclusion:

There is no scientific, religious, philosophical, commonsensical, or any other basis for the concept of creation. However; WE ARE HERE.

Therefore, creation or something else we don't even have a name for yet happened.


My Basis:

We are here.

Not one person in our history has explained it. And neither can I.

 

[Chronos]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[phinds]

Dude... Did you read anything I wrote? that conclusion is not based on lack of evidence. That conclusion is based on the fact that it contradicts two fundamental laws, when everything we have observed always obeys them. I thought I made that pretty clear.

Well, I'm very happy for you. Since you have conclusively solved a problem that has mystified every physicist who's ever looked at it, and that has give rise to numerous theories (none proven) and everyone can now stop worrying about it, I predict a Nobel Prize for you very soon.

 

[DaveC426913]

My conclusion:
There is no scientific basis for the concept of creation.
Therefore, creation cannot be part of any scientific theory - such as BB.

My Conclusion:

There is no scientific, religious, philosophical, commonsensical, or any other basis for the concept of creation. However; WE ARE HERE.

Therefore, creation or something else we don't even have a name for yet happened. My Basis:

We are here.

Not one person in our history has explained it. And neither can I.

OK, but you're not done. You must provide a better theory that what we currently have.

 

[jackmell]

May I attempt to put some closure on this matter?

I believe there are hints of origins all around us. You just need to know how to look: Our Universe is filled with shock phenomena, dynamics which are not smooth but rather reach a critical point and then change often abruptly and qualitatively. I do not feel it is an unreasonable stretch of imagination to suggest these are "aftershocks" of a likewise shock phenomena that gave rise to our Universe. And if this turns out to be close to what actually happened, then because of the qualitatively different nature that often follows a critical-point breach, then phenonema in our world, our laws of physics, cause and effect, gravity, thermodynamics, relativity, may not be suitable for describing the pre-existence which gave rise to our Universe. And so the very question of "cause" may not be applicapble.

Therefore I feel the question is ill-posed because it attempts to use our laws of Nature across a critical point in the same, albeit more simple, way of trying to apply the concept of swimming across the critical point of freezing.

What we need is something qualitatiively different that what we have now, something which goes beyond our current laws of physics just like 2000 years ago what they needed was something else qualitatively different: a spherical earth.

 

[phinds]

jackmell, I have no issue with what you said, but I think you are wildly optimistic if you think it will bring closure to the topic.

 

[jackmell]

jackmell, I have no issue with what you said, but I think you are wildly optimistic if you think it will bring closure to the topic.

Well not in this discussion perhaps but for me, the concept of critical-points and qualitative change that often surround them offers a very satisfying possible explanation of origins which I am optimistic will have some relevance in the ideas that one day better explain the origin of the Universe.

 

[DaveC426913]

I too agree with jackmell's sentiment.

The OP is trying to apply precedent to something unprecedented. (Actually, not just any kind of unprecedented like a women giviing birth to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_prefix#Table_of_number_prefixes_in_English", but the great godmother of all unprecedented.) As if somehow, anything we know could be applied to the thing that receded anything we know.

The rules he cites that it violates are rules that were made by that first event.

The event is more fundamental than the rules are.

 

[juanrga]

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)?

Universe, as we know could not exist «before the big bang».

If according to GR spacetime was created out in a big bang, you cannot say what was the size of the universe «before the big bang» (how did you compute it?)

The study of «the cause of bigbang» (even assuming the existence of a cause) is outside the scope of current observational science. Therefore you can theorize about that all what you want without any possibility to test your hypothesis using scientific method.

You can also think about «hidden causes» all what you want by the same reason.

Recall that science is not the same than religion or metaphysics.

Also it is not true that «sub atomic particles keep on popping in and popping out of existence without any underlying cause».