Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

[elegysix]

What happened to reason? Take all that knowledge from your physics courses and apply it like a legitimate scientist. All we have are observations, and all our knowledge is built from those.

All our observations have shown us that conservation of energy holds.
So naturally, assumptions about an unknown should not include that it was 'created' or from 'a place with different rules'.

Without any evidence, why would you contradict the laws which you know to be true?
Because those laws don't apply in a place without space or time, before creation?
Without any evidence, why do you assume such a place existed?

Until these assumptions are based on observations, these theories are just plain misleading. People who are less educated than ourselves will take these ideas as facts when they are not. I believed BB was creation until I tried to reason it myself - I could find no basis to make such a claim. I encourage you to do the same.
----
You would build your house starting with the foundation, knowing what supports it and what surrounds it; you would not build the roof first and then try to support it - as you have done with these theories.

 

[DaveC426913]

What happened to reason? Take all that knowledge from your physics courses and apply it like a legitimate scientist. All we have are observations, and all our knowledge is built from those.

All our observations have shown us that conservation of energy holds.
So naturally, assumptions about an unknown should not include that it was 'created' or from 'a place with different rules'.

Without any evidence, why would you contradict the laws which you know to be true?

Because - and I'll say it again - the universe is more fundamental than the laws.

This isn't guesswork. When we roll back the current expansion of the universe, we arrive at a time when it was far too hot for matter to exist. We can calculate the energy levels involved. And we can calculate that the fundamental forces would have been unified at those energies. i.e.:

the universe would have actually behaved differently back then. We can show this.

 

[elegysix]

Because - and I'll say it again - the universe is more fundamental than the laws.

This isn't guesswork. When we roll back the current expansion of the universe, we arrive at a time when it was far too hot for matter to exist. We can calculate the energy levels involved. And we can calculate that the fundamental forces would have been unified at those energies. i.e.:

the universe would have actually behaved differently back then. We can show this.

Show it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Show it.

Read a book on the subject. It's not my job to edumacate you on Cosmology. :tongue:

 

[granpa]

1/t is defined everywhere except at t=0

but division is teh inverse of multiplication which is well defined everywhere.

cause and effect is undefined at t=0

cause and effect is just a different way of looking at some other function
which is well defined everywhere including at t=0

I have suggested above that instead of saying that an event is caused by previous events that it might be better to say that it is influenced by previous events

 

[elegysix]

What book? Never heard of such things. "too hot for matter to exist" - never ever heard of such an idea. How could you calculate anything if the rules were different? you would have nothing to go on.

 

[DaveC426913]

What book? Never heard of such things. "too hot for matter to exist" - never ever heard of such an idea.

Then what on Earth are you doing making assertions on the subject about which you haven't bothered to learn even the basics?

Start with Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang" .

 

[elegysix]

Because - and I'll say it again - the universe is more fundamental than the laws.

This isn't guesswork. When we roll back the current expansion of the universe, we arrive at a time when it was far too hot for matter to exist. We can calculate the energy levels involved. And we can calculate that the fundamental forces would have been unified at those energies. i.e.:

the universe would have actually behaved differently back then. We can show this.

From the wiki link you gave "All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period."

Enough said. You are plainly wrong. Perhaps you should have read about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

From the wiki link you gave "All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period."

Enough said. You are plainly wrong. Perhaps you should have read about it.

I said calculate. I didn't say demonstrate in a lab.

Being wrong would require there being a better theory. Currently, the BB is the best model we have, and the next competitors are far behind.

Seriously, you have wasted everyone's time making assertions when you have not bothered to read up on the subject.

Go do some reading.

 

[elegysix]

I said evidence. There is no evidence supporting creation in this theory. That has been my point all along.
So what if things behaved differently and the forces were unified. That says nothing about creation. Nothing at all.
Any 'conditions' you have for creation have been assumed, not derived.

 

[Chronos]

Eleg, you are so far off base you are not even out. Mathematics is for physics, which deals with how things happen. Philosophy deals with why things happen. Most scientists are terrible philosophers.

 

[elegysix]

Listen here... conservation of energy is a well known law, and the creation part of BB has no evidence, nor can you derive the conditions for creation - it is assumed. So take your pick.

 

[Chronos]

Conservation of energy does not apply in GR.

 

[Fredrik]

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)?

Questions about reality can only be answered by theories that define the terms in the question. Different theories define "the big bang" differently. There is no theory that describes an initial singularity that was caused by something else. There are however theories in which the big bang isn't an initial singularity. For example, I think there are theories of inflation that define the big bang as a phase transition that creates a ****load of particles of the type we are familiar with from the type of matter that existed before. In these theories, the universe was already large when this happened. So in these theories, it makes sense to talk about a cause. Unfortunately, I don't know these theories.

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.

You have a few good ideas, but some of your conclusions are wrong. I agree that there's no good reason to think there was a t=0. (There is no t=0 in the original big bang theory, which is just the claim that the large-scale behavior of the universe is approximately described by a FLRW solution). It's not true that the universe is either infinite or simply ends somewhere. There are other options, but you need some fairly sophisticated mathematics to understand them.

I haven't read enough of this thread to understand what the discussion is about, so all I can say about "creation" and "conservation of energy" is that since there's no theory that claims that something was created out of nothing, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

 

[elegysix]

Conservation of energy does not apply in GR.

Agreed, but in GR there is the energy-momentum tensor,

"Matter and geometry must satisfy Einstein's equations, so in particular, the matter's energy-momentum tensor must be divergence-free."

Which is a similar conservation principle.

The third sentence written under "Model-Building" @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Definition_and_basic_properties

 

[elegysix]

I haven't read enough of this thread to understand what the discussion is about, so all I can say about "creation" and "conservation of energy" is that since there's no theory that claims that something was created out of nothing, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

Well played sir, I was of the impression that BBT claimed to be the creation of the universe, out of nothing. I believe I was taught that idea back in elementary school, but now that I've specifically researched this, I realized BB does not include creation.

I will still assert though that our conservation laws mean creation is impossible, where some people have claimed it does not for various reasons.

 

[juanrga]

I will still assert though that our conservation laws mean creation is impossible, where some people have claimed it does not for various reasons.

No really, there exists the idea of the «free lunch» in cosmology.

Essentially says that

0 = matter + gravitation

just as 0 = 5 - 5

 

[elegysix]

If you read some of the older posts, several people reasoned for creation - saying our rules would not apply outside our universe, before creation...

 

[juanrga]

If you read some of the older posts, several people reasoned for creation - saying our rules would not apply outside our universe, before creation...

Well, I also wrote something about that in an older post

 

[DaveC426913]

Listen here... conservation of energy is a well known law,

It is a law conditional of the universe being the way it currently is. This is understood. Don't know about you, but we were taught that as far back as grade school.

We know (regardless of the validity BB theory) that the universe was not always the way it is. That's incontrovertible.

No serious scientist thinks Conservation of Energy applies outside its scope.

and the creation part of BB has no evidence...

The bones of the Big Bang litter every inch of space.

The cmbr is direct first-hand evidence of the BB itself. (Would you know that, not having read about it?)There's no competing theory for how our universe is the way it is. No other theory explains what we see.

Or are you also over at the paleontology forums arguing that there's no evidence dinosaurs never existed because we don't have first-hand exemplars of them...

elegy, you have freely admitted to ignorance of the fundamentals of the theory being discussed (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3587843&postcount=76). Your previous assertions and any future assertions on the subject are without meaning.

 

[leonstavros]

I see the creation of the universe much like what happens down at the quantum level. We are perplexed by the particle/wave duality,superposition and entanglement. We propose that a lot of what happens depends on the observer. Why can we not apply the same attributes to the creation of the universe? The universe may have a creator or it may not, it's up to the observer. There maybe a God or no God or both. It's up to us to chose. On either side of the universal scale nature doesn't follow normal rules.

 

[phinds]

What book? Never heard of such things. "too hot for matter to exist" - never ever heard of such an idea. How could you calculate anything if the rules were different? you would have nothing to go on.

elegysix, you are showing abysmal ignorance here. The fact that you have never heard of such things has no bearing on their existence. You really should read up on this stuff before making the kind of assertions you have made.

I recommend Weinberg's "The First Three Minutes".

 

[DaveC426913]

I see the creation of the universe much like what happens down at the quantum level. We are perplexed by the particle/wave duality,superposition and entanglement. We propose that a lot of what happens depends on the observer. Why can we not apply the same attributes to the creation of the universe? The universe may have a creator or it may not, it's up to the observer. There maybe a God or no God or both. It's up to us to chose. On either side of the universal scale nature doesn't follow normal rules.

This is not what QM purports at all.

What you are describing is known as junk science. This is when technical phrases that have specific meaning are corrupted and used in meaningless places. This is the same kind of junk that has been fueling the 'Law of Attraction' craze.

 

[elegysix]

removed.

 

[elegysix]

elegy, you have freely admitted to ignorance of the fundamentals of the theory being discussed Your previous assertions and any future assertions on the subject are without meaning.

Dude, I just want to know what is behind this idea that causality/conservation may not have applied in early BB, which you have subtly implied several times.

Is this somehow derived that causality/conservation did not apply, or are you just assuming they 'might not' apply, because its a different 'conditional universe' with different forces?

If you can just give me a straightforward reply of
"yes those conditions are derived here @ something" or
"no those particular conditions are not derived"

I will be done with this thread.

 

[RUTA]

Dude, I just want to know what is behind this idea that causality/conservation may not have applied in early BB, ...

My take on this issue is one should keep in mind that GR is a 4-dim theory, i.e., one finds a stress-energy tensor (SET) and spacetime metric (g) that together satisfy Einstein's equations (EE) on the spacetime manifold. Let me explain.

Typically, one assumes a particular SET and then solves for g. In the standard GR cosmology models, the SET one starts with is a perfect fluid which allows the 4-dim spacetime manifold to be sliced into space-like hypersurfaces S of homogeneity and isotropy. The metric g is then split into a spatial part S and proper time T for observers at rest with respect to S. You have your GR cosmology when you solve EE for g on T x S.

Notice that your solution is a 4-dim manifold T x S with a metric g. Nothing is "happening." Nothing is "being created." All that dynamical talk, i.e., 3-dim entities evolving in time, happens when "the universe" is identified with S. At that point, one can tell dynamical stories where the 3-dim entity is the universe S. For example, one can ask what S was like at T = 1 billion years and how did it get to be like it is today, filling in all the details of temperature, energy density, etc, on S as a function of T. But, someone else could choose another 3-dim spatial surface and a tell different story. Granted their "universe" wouldn't be homogeneous and isotropic, but GR doesn't care, its solution stands unaltered. And, there are limits to what one can ask in this dynamical context. For example, one can ask what happened on S immediately before T = 2 seconds and tell a causal story about S(2s) based on S(2s - dT). But, once you get to S(0), there is no earlier S and your causal stories end. As Hawking said, "It's like asking what happens one mile north of the north pole, it's a meaningless question." You've milked the 4-dim GR solution for all the 3+1 dynamical/causal story it has to offer. As far as GR is concerned, the existence of S(0) is no more mysterious than any other event on T x S. You could equally ask, "Whence the event of me touching my nose now?" GR can't answer that either. All GR says is that whatever 4-dim spacetime manifold you choose, the SET and g have to be self-consistent, i.e., they have to satisfy EE. Dynamical stories are, in a very real sense, secondary and irrelevant in this 4-dim view.

“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.” R. Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978) pp. 20-21.

 

[elegysix]

Thanks for the response:
What I gather in response to my question is that:

All things in our 3dim universe exist within the T x S manifold and metric g, regardless of time. - conservation, not creation.

And causality must have existed at this time because we are able to describe it.

Would you say those are reasonable conclusions for me to make?

 

[RUTA]

Thanks for the response:
What I gather in response to my question is that:

All things in our 3dim universe exist within the T x S manifold and metric g, regardless of time. - conservation, not creation.

And causality must have existed at this time because we are able to describe it.

Would you say those are reasonable conclusions for me to make?

Our 3-dim universe is S in TxS with metric g.
There is "conservation" in that SET is divergence-free, i.e., one has local conservation of energy and momentum.
"Causality" exists locally as well. It is represented by the Lorentz signature (time and space distances per g have opposite signs) in g, which is a local object.
These concepts lend themselves to dynamical storytelling, within limits.

 

[elegysix]

Excellent. That's what I wanted to hear.
Thank you for posting!
Seriously!

 

[Pitstopped]

My take on this issue is one should keep in mind that GR is a 4-dim theory, i.e., one finds a stress-energy tensor (SET) and spacetime metric (g) that together satisfy Einstein's equations (EE) on the spacetime manifold. Let me explain.

Typically, one assumes a particular SET and then solves for g. In the standard GR cosmology models, the SET one starts with is a perfect fluid which allows the 4-dim spacetime manifold to be sliced into space-like hypersurfaces S of homogeneity and isotropy. The metric g is then split into a spatial part S and proper time T for observers at rest with respect to S. You have your GR cosmology when you solve EE for g on T x S.

Notice that your solution is a 4-dim manifold T x S with a metric g. Nothing is "happening." Nothing is "being created." All that dynamical talk, i.e., 3-dim entities evolving in time, happens when "the universe" is identified with S. At that point, one can tell dynamical stories where the 3-dim entity is the universe S. For example, one can ask what S was like at T = 1 billion years and how did it get to be like it is today, filling in all the details of temperature, energy density, etc, on S as a function of T. But, someone else could choose another 3-dim spatial surface and a tell different story. Granted their "universe" wouldn't be homogeneous and isotropic, but GR doesn't care, its solution stands unaltered. And, there are limits to what one can ask in this dynamical context. For example, one can ask what happened on S immediately before T = 2 seconds and tell a causal story about S(2s) based on S(2s - dT). But, once you get to S(0), there is no earlier S and your causal stories end. As Hawking said, "It's like asking what happens one mile north of the north pole, it's a meaningless question." You've milked the 4-dim GR solution for all the 3+1 dynamical/causal story it has to offer. As far as GR is concerned, the existence of S(0) is no more mysterious than any other event on T x S. You could equally ask, "Whence the event of me touching my nose now?" GR can't answer that either. All GR says is that whatever 4-dim spacetime manifold you choose, the SET and g have to be self-consistent, i.e., they have to satisfy EE. Dynamical stories are, in a very real sense, secondary and irrelevant in this 4-dim view.

“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.” R. Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978) pp. 20-21.

It is quite interesting to see people who have spent years and countless hours of their life studying one or a number of sciences, and they know nothing more about the beginning and end of time and space than anyone else in the world.

Don't get me wrong, many scientists and enthusiasts are much more knowledgeable than me about any number of things. But... anyone who says they know how space and time started or ends, or tries to explain anything that pertains to it, is full of crap. Yet many sound like they know the mysteries that have stumped every man that has lived.

I think we should strive to solve these questions. But come on... stop trying to sound like you have a clue. Because you don't, no matter how knowledgeable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)

 

[DaveC426913]

...many scientists and enthusiasts are much more knowledgeable than me...

... stop trying to sound like you have a clue. Because you don't, no matter how knowledgeable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)

"I don't know much, all I know is that all those experts don't know what they're talking about." :uhh:

You might want to hold on to that humble pie for yourself...

 

[Pitstopped]

I eat humble pie all the time. That is one reason I can say "I don't know."

Since you didn't really comprehend what I said here it is again in another way:

The Experts know what they are talking about when it come to sciences and known laws. But when they try and speculate on the yet unknown and make it sound like what they know makes them understand it any more than anyone else... it is funny to listen to.

MMMM humble pie all around is all I am saying.

 

[Pitstopped]

For what it is worth DaveC426913, I agree with almost every thing you have posted here. I think you are one of the posters that don't report to "know it all." You post on what is known, and don't make it sound like you know what is not known.

 

[Skolon]

[...]“There is no dynamics within space-time itself: nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes. In particular, one does not think of particles as moving through space-time, or as following along their world-lines. Rather, particles are just in space-time, once and for all, and the world-line represents, all at once, the complete life history of the particle.” R. Geroch, General Relativity from A to B (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1978) pp. 20-21.

For me this is a clear example of how mathematics dominates today physics sciences.
It is fair to stop try to provide a physical explanation of the notion of time just because in the mathematical theory that best explains today the reality of the Universe, time has almost no special meaning? I am not say that BB Theory (a mathematical theory after all) is wrong I just say it is weird, at least for me.
The exclamation "Eppur si muove" is still very modern today and "nothing ever moves therein; nothing happens; nothing changes" does not seem to talk about what we see in the Universe constantly.

In fact it's about something much deeper, is about philosophical ideas of today. But unfortunately philosophy today is not considered a science even by many scientists (I hope to be wrong). Many have forgotten that philosophy is one that deeply affects how they look on all other sciences.

This is why I consider important to add here an idea that can not be scientific in the classic way. What if the reality around us is an illusion? What if we live on a simulated world? This is very old (maybe before Plato) and complicated debate, and you can read more about it on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality" .

In this case the causality in classic meaning can not be used to study the Universe origin. Even the term "origin" became ambiguous because it can be any moment from our reality. Maybe the simulation began 1 billiard years ago (our time), 10 years or 10 seconds ago. We just can't tell.
If you think that the simulated reality is impossible, try to read this paper before: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.pdf" - he is currently the director of The Future of Humanity Institute, director of Programme on the Impacts of Future Technology University of Oxford and a fellow of St Cross College at Oxford University.
If you need more informations about Nick Bostrom you can find a list of main books and articles on http://www.nickbostrom.com/" .

 

[RUTA]

It is quite interesting to see people who have spent years and countless hours of their life studying one or a number of sciences, and they know nothing more about the beginning and end of time and space than anyone else in the world.

Don't get me wrong, many scientists and enthusiasts are much more knowledgeable than me about any number of things. But... anyone who says they know how space and time started or ends, or tries to explain anything that pertains to it, is full of crap. Yet many sound like they know the mysteries that have stumped every man that has lived.

I think we should strive to solve these questions. But come on... stop trying to sound like you have a clue. Because you don't, no matter how knowledgeable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)

I'm not "pretending to have a clue," I'm posting what I know about GR. If you have a different view of GR, post it and we'll discuss our different perspectives.