Cause of origin of Universe

[...]“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 knowledgable 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 knowledgable you are about astrophysics, molecular physics, or any other field. Calm it down a little and have a piece of pie (humble.)

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.