Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

[DaveC426913]

... make it sound like what they know makes them understand it any more than anyone else...

It is nothing more than your opinion that they are trying to "make it sound like" anything. iT is an unfalsifiable accusation.

 

[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.

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.

My point as explained by you. Thanks'

You are posting about General Relativity which explains gravity and gravitation. Einstein founded the principle and still couldn't solve the mystery this thread is supposed to be about "cause of origin of universe." You are explaining GR, which you you should be proud to understand, but it does not help you solve the origin of the universe any more than explaining reflectivity and obsorbtion. You proved my point. "The Experts know what they are talking about when it comes 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."

You see, I feel expounding on GR would make me feel smart, and could be a great conversation in a GR thread. But it did nothing to help us solve the origin of the universe.

 

[Pitstopped]

It is nothing more than your opinion that they are trying to "make it sound like" anything. iT is an unfalsifiable accusation.

You are exactly right.

It is the same thing many people do here trying to explain scientific principles and laws that do not explain the origin of the universe.

I am just upfront and admit it. I could post about all the physics, dark matter, relativity, cause/effect, cosmology, black holes, thermodynamics, induction, conservation laws, quantum mechanics, radiation, mathematics... I could talk about Kepler, Newton, Boyle, Ohm, Bacon, Lamaitre, Hubble...

Kind of a waste for me to type all that huh? Just like it is to post about them in this thread !

 

[elegysix]

If our laws 'may' not apply, then you are claiming all our models 'may' be wrong.
Granted this 'may' be true, you cannot learn anything from this. It is pointless to consider.
We have to use what we know and hope to discover what we don't.

You see, I feel expounding on GR would make me feel smart, and could be a great conversation in a GR thread. But it did nothing to help us solve the origin of the universe.

The reason he posted about GR is because I asked about conservation/causality in the early BB.

My argument was that our conservation laws state creation is impossible.
It is valid in my opinion, because both classically and in GR there is conservation.
Applying that, things must have existed before the BB occurred, in whatever state, which eventually expanded as BB has shown.

That is my best guess for the origin of the universe - There is none.
You may not like it, but it is based on our laws.
If one day, we observe something created from nothing, our laws will change, and so will my view.
I'm done with this thread, so take it or leave it. I don't care.

 

[Pitstopped]

elegysix finally got it.

About 97% of the posts on this thread have been "junk posts" (like the similarity to junk science?)

They did nothing to find the cause of origin of the universe.

 

[Chronos]

It is well established that virtual particles are created from 'nothing' in empty space. So, it is just a matter of scale.

 

[Pitstopped]

Virtual Particles are real and measurable, I will give you that. But, the fact that they are created from 'nothing' is not proven. Do you think there is nothing in space? Do you think there is 'nothing' in a vacuum?

Space has very very low density and pressure, but it still has some (it is not 0) It is as close to a true vacuum we have. Even interstellar space has hydrogen atoms. Your "empty space" is not empty.

Those virtual particles are created from 'something'. No scientist has ever proved otherwise.

 

[DaveC426913]

Virtual Particles are real and measurable, I will give you that.

Really Pitstopped, pick a stance. Either experts don't know what they're talking about or we are all free to voice our opinions (including you, with your admittedly limited opinions). To try to have both is both hypocritical and destructive to discussion. You make it like you have more of a right to an opinion because you know less.

Kind of a waste for me to type all that huh? Just like it is to post about them in this thread !

Why are you here? Put your money where your mouth is and step away.

You won't. I'm just calling attention to the fact that you like the sound of your own voice.

 

[Pitstopped]

Oh, now you have taken offense to someone pointing out that the learned man that spouts what he has read and memorized over and over doesn't really amount to squat.

I don't have limited opinions or knowledge, I just know that mine don't come close to explaining the cause of origin of the universe, and neither do yours.

Didn't you even read my post previous? I could post on many theories and sciences, but there is no need in this thread. You can post any opinion you want on this thread. I am just pointing out how funny it is to listen to people post opinions about sciences and theories that they have memorized and think it comes close to explaining the topic of this thread.

I will walk away just to prove your point, and let you "win." Because I can tell you need that in your life.

I would say someone with 13,000+ post likes the sound of their voice quite a bit. I have read several of those posts and it is my opinion you are very smart and logical. I agree with most all you post. Many of the posts I read are on topic and well put. Some though are to hear your voice. I would say you should try the pie though sometimes.

Have fun discussing something you know nothing about, but making it seem like you do on this topic.

 

[phinds]

We've got another winner here, huh Dave?

 

[DaveC426913]

Oh, now you have taken offense to someone pointing out that the learned man that spouts what he has read and memorized over and over doesn't really amount to squat.

I don't have limited opinions or knowledge, I just know that mine don't come close to explaining the cause of origin of the universe, and neither do yours.

You have no business speaking for anyone but yourself.

This is not how PF rolls, Pitstopped. You want to slag the science community, start your own forum.

 

[jtbell]

Closed pending decision / action by the mentors.