Register to reply

Cause of origin of Universe

by GarryS
Tags: size, universe
Share this thread:
elegysix
#55
Oct27-11, 06:37 PM
P: 314
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
#56
Oct28-11, 02:46 AM
P: 22
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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
#57
Oct28-11, 03:51 AM
P: 366
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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.

Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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.

Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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 doesnt 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
#58
Oct28-11, 08:21 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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
#59
Oct28-11, 05:32 PM
P: 314
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
#60
Oct28-11, 06:22 PM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,080
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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
#61
Oct28-11, 09:16 PM
P: 314
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
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
#62
Oct28-11, 09:39 PM
P: 15
[QUOTE=elegysix;3585719]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
#63
Oct29-11, 02:52 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Chronos's Avatar
P: 9,359
Assumes facts not in evidence.
phinds
#64
Oct29-11, 08:16 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,080
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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 physist 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
#65
Oct29-11, 09:49 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by Pitstopped View Post
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
#66
Oct29-11, 10:23 AM
P: 1,666
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
#67
Oct29-11, 10:43 AM
PF Gold
phinds's Avatar
P: 6,080
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
#68
Oct29-11, 10:51 AM
P: 1,666
Quote Quote by phinds View Post
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
#69
Oct29-11, 11:25 AM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
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 vigintuplets, 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
#70
Oct29-11, 01:32 PM
P: 476
Quote Quote by GarryS View Post
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».
elegysix
#71
Oct29-11, 07:23 PM
P: 314
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
#72
Oct29-11, 11:39 PM
DaveC426913's Avatar
P: 15,319
Quote Quote by elegysix View Post
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.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Origin of universe... Cosmology 44
Origin of the universe Cosmology 13
Origin of the Universe Quantum Physics 7
Origin of the Universe: Created Universe vs Cyclical Universe Astronomy & Astrophysics 9