What Caused the Flaw in the Singularity that Triggered the Big Bang?

[curiouschris]

As far as I am aware the current theory (most popular) for the creation of the universe was that it arose from a singularity. This singularity exploded (The Big Bang) and created the universe as we know it.

Now for all changes that occur, whether it be an explosion, a landslide, an earthquake or even the thoughts of a poster, something must trigger it. This is an application of logic not physical laws (debatable) and therefore I believe a trigger or flaw or impurity in the singularity would be necessary. In other words it can't suddenly decide to go bang.

Is that thinking correct?
What would give rise to such a external force or inherent flaw?

CC

p.s. Its hard to talk about events without invoking a time element like 'suddenly'.

 

[Drakkith]

As far as I am aware the current theory (most popular) for the creation of the universe was that it arose from a singularity. This singularity exploded (The Big Bang) and created the universe as we know it.

Not really. The singularity is most likely a product of our incomplete knowledge at the temperature and density scales that the early universe existed in. All we really know is that the universe was once very hot, very dense, and expanded from there.

Now for all changes that occur, whether it be an explosion, a landslide, an earthquake or even the thoughts of a poster, something must trigger it. This is an application of logic not physical laws (debatable) and therefore I believe a trigger or flaw or impurity in the singularity would be necessary. In other words it can't suddenly decide to go bang.

Is that thinking correct?
What would give rise to such a external force or inherent flaw?

CC

p.s. Its hard to talk about events without invoking a time element like 'suddenly'.

The simple answer is that we don't know.

 

[skydivephil]

I think the problem is not that we have no idea how the big bang was triggered but we have far too many ideas, none of them verified by any data. The ideas do seem to me to be falling under two areas though:
mutiverse, our big bang is just one of many: look up "eternal inflation " for this
cyclic: many diffferent versions of cyclic cocmoslogy exist , google "Loop quanutm cosmology" "Conformal cyclic cosmology" or "ekpyrotic".
There is a book coming out which is supposed to be for a lay audience but I suspect will be more academic than that, alink is here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/3540714227/?tag=pfamazon01-20
But if you can't afford it or don't want to wait, there is an ok summary here:
http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1910/1/VAASTIME.PDF

 

[Chronos]

Most scientists consider the initial 'singularity' thing unrealistic, but, the 'we have no clue' proposition remains popular.

 

[phyzguy]

Now for all changes that occur, whether it be an explosion, a landslide, an earthquake or even the thoughts of a poster, something must trigger it. This is an application of logic not physical laws (debatable) and therefore I believe a trigger or flaw or impurity in the singularity would be necessary.

While you may consider this proposition that "All events must have a cause" to be self-evidently true, it is not, and it appears not to be true in our universe. Orthodox quantum mechanics rejects this proposition - things can 'just happen'. An excited atom sits there for a while, and then just emits a photon, with no apparent trigger. A uranium atom just sits there for a billion years and then decays for no apparent reason. As others have said, we really have no clue what triggered the big bang, but one possibility is that it arose through a quantum fluctuation, meaning that it 'just happened' with no previous event having triggered it.

 

[bapowell]

And for the record, the big bang was not an explosion in any traditional sense of the word.

 

[Drakkith]

While you may consider this proposition that "All events must have a cause" to be self-evidently true, it is not, and it appears not to be true in our universe. Orthodox quantum mechanics rejects this proposition - things can 'just happen'. An excited atom sits there for a while, and then just emits a photon, with no apparent trigger. A uranium atom just sits there for a billion years and then decays for no apparent reason. As others have said, we really have no clue what triggered the big bang, but one possibility is that it arose through a quantum fluctuation, meaning that it 'just happened' with no previous event having triggered it.

I disagree with this. While we may not be able to predice when a specific atom will decay, I wouldn't say that it decays for no reason.

 

[Mark M]

As far as I am aware the current theory (most popular) for the creation of the universe was that it arose from a singularity. This singularity exploded (The Big Bang) and created the universe as we know it.

Now for all changes that occur, whether it be an explosion, a landslide, an earthquake or even the thoughts of a poster, something must trigger it. This is an application of logic not physical laws (debatable) and therefore I believe a trigger or flaw or impurity in the singularity would be necessary. In other words it can't suddenly decide to go bang.

Is that thinking correct?
What would give rise to such a external force or inherent flaw?

CC

p.s. Its hard to talk about events without invoking a time element like 'suddenly'.

Chris,

When you say Big Bang, are you referring to the absolute beginning of the universe, or the beginning of the rapid expansion?

If you are referring to expansion, the 'Bang' part, inflation is the excepted theory on how this occurs. Inflation theorizes that a field, called the inflaton field, produced an enormous negative-pressure vacuum energy, after getting stuck on a false vacuum. This would have expanded the universe by a factor of up to 100¹⁰⁰, for about 10^-36 seconds, estimated to be 10^-33 seconds after the big bang.

If you are referring to the absolute beginning, then that is a highly speculative question. But no 'trigger' is necessary. One proposal from the cosmologist Sean Carroll is that the universe began as a time-symmetric de Sitter space, so the idea of a cause is not necessary. There are also the cyclic models, such as Paul Steinhardt's proposal of the Ekpyrotic universe, in which two 3-branes collide every 1 trillion years. Obviously, this dependent on M-Theory.

Also, singularity is a breakdown of general relativity. Stephan Hawking and Roger Penrose had originally convinced many of the idea that the universe began in a singularity, but today it is mostly recognized as an example of extending a theory beyond its range of applicability. We still need quantum gravity to analyze conditions of the Planck Epcoh.

I disagree with this. While we may not be able to predice when a specific atom will decay, I wouldn't say that it decays for no reason.

Correct, but I believe phyzguy was trying to say that quantum mechanics says it could happen for now apparent reason.

 

[bapowell]

If you are referring to expansion, the 'Bang' part, inflation is the excepted theory on how this occurs.

There was no "bang" part. Using this kind of language confuses people into thinking that the big bang was some sort of explosion. Inflation, as a process, is completely separate from the big bang, and neither were explosions.

This would have expanded the universe by a factor of up to 100¹⁰⁰

Where'd you get this number? Inflation grew the universe by a factor of least $e^{60} \sim 10^{23}$, but could have lasted longer. Your number is closer to the number of vacua predicted to exist in the string landscape, which is a completely different problem.

 

[Mark M]

There was no "bang" part. Using this kind of language confuses people into thinking that the big bang was some sort of explosion. Inflation, as a process, is completely separate from the big bang, and neither were explosions.

Bad terminology, though what I was trying to convey by 'bang' was the beginning of expansion. I can see how this could be misinterpreted as some kind of explosion.

Where'd you get this number? Inflation grew the universe by a factor of least $e^{60} \sim 10^{23}$, but could have lasted longer. Your number is closer to the number of vacua predicted to exist in the string landscape, which is a completely different problem.

First line of the article, "at least 10⁷⁸ in volume"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology))

Where did you get 10²³? Also, the number of vacua predicted in string theory is closer to 10⁵⁰⁰.

 

[bapowell]

First line of the article, "at least 10⁷⁸ in volume"
Where did you get 10²³?

Yes, the volume expanded by at least that factor, but the number that is usually quoted is the number of e-folds of expansion, which is the amount of increase of the scale factor -- this is what I thought you were referring to. I mistyped -- that should be $10^{26}$.

Also, the number of vacua predicted in string theory is closer to 10⁵⁰⁰.

Great. I was only off by 400 orders of magnitude.

 

[curiouschris]

Wow thanks guys. I now have a whole bunch of stuff to go through. Maybe I shouldn't be so curious.

Please excuse this laymans approach...

I am not a fan of m theory for no other reason than it seems to much like, Hey this equation doesn't work out, I'll throw in another universe or two and maybe an extra dimension. There you go now it works... well almost anyway.

I read in Paul Davies book "The mind of God" about gaps in our knowledge being attributed to God and he introduced me to the phrase "God of the Gaps" This resonated with me and has stuck. but I apply it to not only religion but all endeavors of man. Thus I believe theories like M Theory, String theory and similar are "Theories of the Gaps". I sincerely doubt their correctness.

I hope I haven't offended in my previous paragraph.

In a similar vein I view singularities as being a creation of gaps rather than having any real basis. So I am heartened by the response.

I have no problem per se with inflation and my original question was to see whether I was wrong in my misgivings over a singularity. I felt a singularity was an impossibility and even if it wasnt it needed something to initiate the 'inflation' (I won't use bang). I do believe all actions are preceded by an initiator, so I also do not agree with phyzguy. Whether we are able to determine what the initiator is or can predict the onset is another thing altogether.

I guess I am more of a fan of the expanding contracting universe. in the end it will collapse until the density and temperature reaches such a high level a change is triggered and inflation starts again.
Perhaps each iteration results in a different set of physical laws. Except now I sound like a theoretical physicist.

 

[phyzguy]

I disagree with this. While we may not be able to predice when a specific atom will decay, I wouldn't say that it decays for no reason.

You may disagree, but I believe that this is what standard quantum mechanics says. Also, the Bell inequalities put strong constraints on any type of 'hidden variable' theories that would allow you to predict the outcome of an experiment on a specific particle.

 

[skydivephil]

Wow thanks guys. I now have a whole bunch of stuff to go through. Maybe I shouldn't be so curious.

Please excuse this laymans approach...

I am not a fan of m theory for no other reason than it seems to much like, Hey this equation doesn't work out, I'll throw in another universe or two and maybe an extra dimension. There you go now it works... well almost anyway.

I read in Paul Davies book "The mind of God" about gaps in our knowledge being attributed to God and he introduced me to the phrase "God of the Gaps" This resonated with me and has stuck. but I apply it to not only religion but all endeavors of man. Thus I believe theories like M Theory, String theory and similar are "Theories of the Gaps". I sincerely doubt their correctness.

I hope I haven't offended in my previous paragraph.

In a similar vein I view singularities as being a creation of gaps rather than having any real basis. So I am heartened by the response.

I have no problem per se with inflation and my original question was to see whether I was wrong in my misgivings over a singularity. I felt a singularity was an impossibility and even if it wasnt it needed something to initiate the 'inflation' (I won't use bang). I do believe all actions are preceded by an initiator, so I also do not agree with phyzguy. Whether we are able to determine what the initiator is or can predict the onset is another thing altogether.

I guess I am more of a fan of the expanding contracting universe. in the end it will collapse until the density and temperature reaches such a high level a change is triggered and inflation starts again.
Perhaps each iteration results in a different set of physical laws. Except now I sound like a theoretical physicist.

I would advise against letting your personal prefences get in the way of conclusions. The data tells us what's correct. Its not like going to the movies where your subejctive preferences are important. We shouldn't believe our universe is going to collapse unless the data demands it. at the moment the data is the other way. That doesn't mean there haven't been previous collapses but again the data must tell us that.
As I udnerstand it M theory was invesnted to show how different string theories were equivalent. Hence is not equiavlent to a god of the gaps argument. That doenst mean its correct, again we shall have to wait and see. There are certianly ways to criticize M theory, but I am not sure this is an appropriate one.

 

[Mark M]

I am not a fan of m theory for no other reason than it seems to much like, Hey this equation doesn't work out, I'll throw in another universe or two and maybe an extra dimension. There you go now it works... well almost anyway.

Although I can not argue against that, it does not matter what you 'feel' about a theory. If it is self-consistent, solves the problem at hand, and is consistent with data, we stay with it until a better theory is proposed.

I read in Paul Davies book "The mind of God" about gaps in our knowledge being attributed to God and he introduced me to the phrase "God of the Gaps" This resonated with me and has stuck. but I apply it to not only religion but all endeavors of man. Thus I believe theories like M Theory, String theory and similar are "Theories of the Gaps". I sincerely doubt their correctness.

They are not anything like a 'god of the gaps'. I don't see where you are drawing any comparison.

In a similar vein I view singularities as being a creation of gaps rather than having any real basis. So I am heartened by the response.

They aren't created to fill gaps, they are the gap. They are regions that appear because a particular theory is taken out of it's area of applicably.

I have no problem per se with inflation and my original question was to see whether I was wrong in my misgivings over a singularity. I felt a singularity was an impossibility and even if it wasnt it needed something to initiate the 'inflation' (I won't use bang). I do believe all actions are preceded by an initiator, so I also do not agree with phyzguy. Whether we are able to determine what the initiator is or can predict the onset is another thing altogether.

This is misguided, you're equating your experiences of cause an effect to something that is totally different. Similar to the way I stated earlier that singularities arise, you are using something beyond where it applies. If the universe had absolute maximum entropy at t=0, then nothing would happen for a reason, quantum processes would dominate.

I guess I am more of a fan of the expanding contracting universe. in the end it will collapse until the density and temperature reaches such a high level a change is triggered and inflation starts again.

The universe is accelerating, ruling out any re collapse ideas.

 

[Drakkith]

You may disagree, but I believe that this is what standard quantum mechanics says. Also, the Bell inequalities put strong constraints on any type of 'hidden variable' theories that would allow you to predict the outcome of an experiment on a specific particle.

I believe QM explains exactly why a particle decays, it just doesn't let us know exactly when it will happen. This has nothing to do with hidden variables.

 

[phyzguy]

I believe QM explains exactly why a particle decays, it just doesn't let us know exactly when it will happen. This has nothing to do with hidden variables.

OK. In reference to the OP's original statement that 'All events must have a cause', explain to me the trigger that causes a Uranium atom to decay after not decaying for a billion years.

 

[Drakkith]

OK. In reference to the OP's original statement that 'All events must have a cause', explain to me the trigger that causes a Uranium atom to decay after not decaying for a billion years.

It's unstable and it's decay is governed by statistics and probability. That is "cause" to me. I'm sure someone more educated in the details of QM could explain it better.

 

[phyzguy]

So maybe the OP would be satisfied with the answer, "The quantum vacuum is unstable and its decay into an inflating universe is governed by the laws of statistics and probability". Curiouschris, does this answer your question?

 

[bapowell]

So maybe the OP would be satisfied with the answer, "The quantum vacuum is unstable and its decay into an inflating universe is governed by the laws of statistics and probability". Curiouschris, does this answer your question?

It's likely closer to the opposite: while the universe is trapped in a metastable false vacuum, it inflates. It stops inflating when it decays to the true vacuum, nucleating a non-inflationary universe.

 

[phyzguy]

It's likely closer to the opposite: while the universe is trapped in a metastable false vacuum, it inflates. It stops inflating when it decays to the true vacuum, nucleating a non-inflationary universe.

Right, but I thought one hypothesis was that it arrives in the state of metastable false vacuum by tunneling there from the true vacuum. No?

 

[bapowell]

Right, but I thought one hypothesis was that it arrives in the state of metastable false vacuum by tunneling there from the true vacuum. No?

Of course it could! But, the true vacuum is by definition of lower energy. So, the decay will more likely proceed from the metastable false vacuum to the true vacuum.

 

[RUTA]

As far as I am aware the current theory (most popular) for the creation of the universe was that it arose from a singularity. This singularity exploded (The Big Bang) and created the universe as we know it.

Now for all changes that occur, whether it be an explosion, a landslide, an earthquake or even the thoughts of a poster, something must trigger it.

You're assuming a dynamical interpretation of general relativity (GR). Actually, GR simply says the metric (g) and stress-energy tensor (SET) on the spacetime manifold (M) must be consistent with each other per Einstein's equations (EE). Accordingly, g and SET at any particular point p of M are determined by their relationships with g and SET at all points of M in the immediate vicinity of p which includes not just the past of p, but all directions about p. Thus, the solution at any point p is no more mysterious than the solution at any other point on M. The mystery about the big bang isn't "where did it come from?" (you could ask that question about any point on M), but what is the solution g and SET at the big bang? EE don't tell us, that's what we mean by a singularity. But as for the "origin" of some point p of M, there is no answer in the context of GR.

 

[Physgeek123]

Hello all,

I am intensely interested in Astrophysics and Cosmology as a 12 year old.

Wandering across this topic and reading some of the replies, it occurred to me, that NO ONE has yet mentioned the Cyclic Model of the Universe.

The Cyclic Model suggests that there are many Universes, which are ultimately the product of the collision of two multidimensional membranes, which I forget the total energy of. The following diagram reveals the cyclic model in simplicity:

I came to know about this model when reading Astronomy magazine (astronomy.com). The Big Bang is a big explosion which we now consider plausible, so any skeptics to this should probably know that this is as insensible as a huge explosion giving rise to an ever expanding blob which we now call the Universe.

But again where on god's green Earth did these Membranes come from ?

 

[Drakkith]

Physgeek, the problem with that theory is that evidence isn't currently observable. One can come up with all the math and all the theory they want, but until we can actually observe something that it predicts it is effectively as useless as any other creation theory/myth. Also, the Big Bang was not an explosion in the normal sense.

 

[Imax]

Anisotropies from a steady state?

 

[Physgeek123]

Re: What triggered the Big Bang?
Physgeek, the problem with that theory is that evidence isn't currently observable. One can come up with all the math and all the theory they want, but until we can actually observe something that it predicts it is effectively as useless as any other creation theory/myth. Also, the Big Bang was not an explosion in the normal sense.

Dear Drrakith,

My bad. The big bang was not an explosion, it happened simultaneously everywhere at once. But since the theory like all other models of the universe doesn't say where the starting point (the singularity in our case) comes from, I suppose that is why the mind wanders to other theories which offer explanations. Don't blame me, it's just human nature.

 

[Physgeek123]

Re: What triggered the Big Bang?
Originally Posted by phyzguy
OK. In reference to the OP's original statement that 'All events must have a cause', explain to me the trigger that causes a Uranium atom to decay after not decaying for a billion years.
It's unstable and it's decay is governed by statistics and probability.

Drrakith: That is "cause" to me. I'm sure someone more educated in the details of QM could explain it better.

I'm not that educated in QM myself, but here goes:

Quantum mechanics states that all particles are in different states all at one time, until someone makes an observation. An answer to physguy's question is not possible unless you consider two scenarios. 1st scenario: the uranium isotope is put in a container not touched (observed) For billions of years. When someone observes it, it goes snap and decays. However in the second scenario, the observer keeps checking regularly. After observation, the particle goes random between it's many possible states. And then after a number of observations, it decays. But why not decay in the first place? Because of entropy. Total entropy is never biased and always remains the same. So if something good happens, something bad must happen (according to the law of karma. Creepy. Does that mean the ancient Hindus knew about QM before us?). So in our case, something must have happened somewhere in the universe to imbalance entropy, which corrected itself by decaying that atom? But why that atom? Here comes probability...