Big Bang: Discovering the Reasons Behind Its Occurrence

[FizixFreak]

for what reason did the big bang took place?

 

[mgb_phys]

Nobody knows - You can rationalize this as:

It's a quantum event - there is no need for a cause, it's just random.
Since time was created - there was no 'before' for any cause to happen in.
since it's fundamentally unknowable - it's not a valid question

 

[Delta2]

It took place because God wanted to create something :)

 

[mgb_phys]

It took place because God wanted to create something :)

I've always been partial to the software bug theory = it was a buffer overflow in Universe 1.0

 

[Delta2]

I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.

What? That's absurd. Calling something a "flaw" is a subjective judgment. As is meaning and making things more interesting. Reality cannot conform to these subjective judgments. The only way you can think it's true is if you bend your subjective judgments to conform to reality.

For this reason, asking "for what reason" something takes place is usually, in science, a completely bogus question. It is reasonable to ask how the big bang started, how often such a thing might happen, and what sorts of universes are produced in your typical big bang. We don't know any of these answers yet, but they're still reasonable questions. Asking for the "purpose" of the big bang, however, is just an invalid question: there is none. It just is.

 

[Delta2]

What? That's absurd. Calling something a "flaw" is a subjective judgment. As is meaning and making things more interesting. Reality cannot conform to these subjective judgments. The only way you can think it's true is if you bend your subjective judgments to conform to reality.

Whats the problem with subjective judgements? Life is not only science we don't have to consider only facts and objective truth. Universe supports life and life supports subjective judgements.

For this reason, asking "for what reason" something takes place is usually, in science, a completely bogus question. It is reasonable to ask how the big bang started, how often such a thing might happen, and what sorts of universes are produced in your typical big bang. We don't know any of these answers yet, but they're still reasonable questions. Asking for the "purpose" of the big bang, however, is just an invalid question: there is none. It just is.

Again life is not only science. We don't have to see everything in a scientific context and how it relates to science and if it carries an objective truth. Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.

Saying that the purpose (or the cause ) of the big bang is none might stand from a purely schientific point of view but from a subjective point of view we expect things to have a meaning thus they must have a cause and probably serve a purpose.

 

[jackmell]

for what reason did the big bang took place?

I believe we can know how it happened just not now. Think about the history of Astronomy: we thought the Earth was flat, that changed, that we were the center of the Universe, that changed, that the sun and moon "moved" around the earth, that changed, that all we could see in the sky (mostly) was all that there was. I mean it was less than 100 years ago that we believed the entire Universe was the Milky Way. I believe our understanding is still incomplete and we do not at present have adequate tools to understand origins.

However I am comforted in reaching my own personal conclusion based on the "discontinuous" nature of phenomena in the Universe, that the reason it emerged was due to some larger system reaching a critical point like when a supersaturated solution of sugar is slowly cooled, it reaches such a critical point rapidly precipitating the sugar out of solution. In the same way, I suspect this larger system reached a critical point, and our Universe "precipitated" into existence.

 

[DaveC426913]

Saying that the purpose (or the cause ) of the big bang is none might stand from a purely schientific point of view but from a subjective point of view we expect things to have a meaning thus they must have a cause and probably serve a purpose.

Except that, since it's subjective, there are as many valid interpretations as there are people on the planet. Since everyone has an opinion, and none are wrong, you end up with a difference with no distinction. In other words, an utterly useless concept. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the concept, just that it is of no use.


A useful concept, on the other hand, is one where there is enough internal logic that others - who may not have originally shared the same idea - are convinced it is sound.

 

[DaveC426913]

I believe we can know how it happened just not now. Think about the history of Astronomy: we thought the Earth was flat, that changed, that we were the center of the Universe, that changed, that the sun and moon "moved" around the earth, that changed, that all we could see in the sky (mostly) was all that there was. I mean it was less than 100 years ago that we believed the entire Universe was the Milky Way. I believe our understanding is still incomplete and we do not at present have adequate tools to understand origins.

However I am comforted in reaching my own personal conclusion based on the "discontinuous" nature of phenomena in the Universe, that the reason it emerged was due to some larger system reaching a critical point like when a supersaturated solution of sugar is slowly cooled, it reaches such a critical point rapidly precipitating the sugar out of solution. In the same way, I suspect this larger system reached a critical point, and our Universe "precipitated" into existence.

Ah, but all you've done then is push back the point of creation. OK, so the BB is simply an effect of a larger cause.

To borrow the OP's words, for what reason did the larger cause took place?

 

[jackmell]

Ah, but all you've done then is push back the point of creation. OK, so the BB is simply an effect of a larger cause.

To borrow the OP's words, for what reason did the larger cause took place?

Yeah, that's true but for now, I'm content with just trying to come to terms with the Big Bang. And keep in mind such (endless) regression may involve singularities which when pushed pass these points, concepts on one side of the singularity cannot be applied to explain phenomena on the other side of the singularity.

Take the sugar-crystal beings in the supersaturated solution. They may ask, "how could a sugar crystal emerge from "nothing" (something not a sugar crystal)? The answer of course is it did not emerge from sugar crystals but from something qualitatively different than a crystal: ions in solution. Applying that logic to origins, perhaps "cause an effect" we now observe in the Universe could emerge from something not cause and effect.

My main working hypothesis is the phase-transition that a system undergoes when it passes through a critical point and the realization that often qualitatively different concepts are needed to describe the system on either side of the critical point. My belief is the Big Bang was one such critical point.

 

[Chalnoth]

Whats the problem with subjective judgements? Life is not only science we don't have to consider only facts and objective truth. Universe supports life and life supports subjective judgements.

I'm not saying that subjective judgments are bad, merely that they should be used properly. Subjective judgments cannot be statements about the nature of reality. Instead, subjective judgments are statements about the person making the judgment.

Thus questions of "meaning", "purpose", or "interest" are questions about us, or about whoever (or whatever) else is making these subjective judgments, not questions about the nature of reality.

Saying that the purpose (or the cause ) of the big bang is none might stand from a purely schientific point of view but from a subjective point of view we expect things to have a meaning thus they must have a cause and probably serve a purpose.

That is completely invalid reasoning. You're basically saying that reality must conform to your whims. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way.

 

[bapowell]

I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.

If it does not appear perfect to the common human sense, and assuming that you are, in fact, a human yourself, how do you know that it "is in fact very perfect?" Do you talk to God?

I am also assuming that you recognize the extreme logical fallacy in concluding that perfection universally proves the existence of God. This is a physics forum where people discuss science. Your assertion is non-empirical, objectively useless, and has no place here.

 

[DaveC426913]

This is a physics forum where people discuss science. Your assertion is non-empirical, objectively useless, and has no place here.

OK well, in his defense, we was the first person to acknowledge that:

Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.

 

[bapowell]

OK well, in his defense, we was the first person to acknowledge that:

Whoops. I didn't have the will power to read the second post. Apologies. Although I am still interested in finding out if Delta^2 is a prophet.

 

[DaveC426913]

I don't see any bugs in the universe, universe does not appear to be perfect to the common human sense but it is in fact very perfect (For every flaw we observe in the universe if we carefully think it over we ll see that it is not a flaw but it exists to give more meaning and make it more interesting) and this perfection proves that it is the creation of a supreme being which is what we refer as God.

The other problem with this logic is that it is self-fulfilling. There is no possible way, even in principle, for it to be falsifiable. Any "flaw" will simply be rationalized as another element that makes it more "interesting and meaningful".

Since it can not, even in principle, be falsifiable, that means it contains no truth.

 

[George Jones]

Ofcourse you might argue that this is a science forum so u imply that we may discuss something only if it relates to science but that's another subject.

This is a physics forum where people discuss science. Your assertion is non-empirical, objectively useless, and has no place here.

Yes, so, as required by the Physics Forums Rules,

Overly Speculative Posts: One of the main goals of PF is to help students learn the current status of physics as practiced by the scientific community; accordingly, Physicsforums.com strives to maintain high standards of academic integrity. There are many open questions in physics, and we welcome discussion on those subjects provided the discussion remains intellectually sound. It is against our Posting Guidelines to discuss, in most of the PF forums or in blogs, new or non-mainstream theories or ideas that have not been published in professional peer-reviewed journals or are not part of current professional mainstream scientific discussion.

stick to mainstream physic, or this thread will be locked, and warnings or infractions given.

 

[FizixFreak]

why is it that before big bang TIME could not exist?

 

[Chalnoth]

why is it that before big bang TIME could not exist?

Well, that's more a statement about certain very specific models of the big bang, not necessarily a statement about reality.

Basically, in some models, such as in Stephen Hawkings' no boundary proposal, there simply isn't any time before the big bang. Asking "what came before the big bang" is analogous to asking "what lies north of the north pole." This is because in his no boundary proposal, the space-time manifold doesn't actually have any sort of edge, just like there is no end to the surface of the Earth (in the sense of people who thought the Earth was flat thought of an edge). It is, however, finite, wrapping back on itself in a very specific way. Thus what we see of as "time" has a beginning of sorts, but there is nothing "before" it (just as the Earth has a point that is furthest north, but with nothing north of that point).

 

[FizixFreak]

Well, that's more a statement about certain very specific models of the big bang, not necessarily a statement about reality.

Basically, in some models, such as in Stephen Hawkings' no boundary proposal, there simply isn't any time before the big bang. Asking "what came before the big bang" is analogous to asking "what lies north of the north pole." This is because in his no boundary proposal, the space-time manifold doesn't actually have any sort of edge, just like there is no end to the surface of the Earth (in the sense of people who thought the Earth was flat thought of an edge). It is, however, finite, wrapping back on itself in a very specific way. Thus what we see of as "time" has a beginning of sorts, but there is nothing "before" it (just as the Earth has a point that is furthest north, but with nothing north of that point).

so time was ''created'' after the big bang .
cant i say that the big bang actually triggered the creation of the ''things'' that could experience time rather than saying that big bang caused the creation of time (as before it there was nothing or none that could measure or evaluate time)??

 

[Chalnoth]

so time was ''created'' after the big bang .
cant i say that the big bang actually triggered the creation of the ''things'' that could experience time rather than saying that big bang caused the creation of time (as before it there was nothing or none that could measure or evaluate time)??

It depends upon the model. We don't yet know which model is an accurate description of reality.

 

[FizixFreak]

It depends upon the model. We don't yet know which model is an accurate description of reality.

if we say that time was ''created'' after big bang wouldn't that imply that time only has existence when there is some one or some thing that can feel it but relativity gives a different picture of time to us?

 

[Chalnoth]

if we say that time was ''created'' after big bang wouldn't that imply that time only has existence when there is some one or some thing that can feel it but relativity gives a different picture of time to us?

No, not at all. You don't need an observer to experience time. But space and time themselves exist on what is called a manifold. Without a manifold, you have no space, no time.

 

[FizixFreak]

No, not at all. You don't need an observer to experience time. But space and time themselves exist on what is called a manifold. Without a manifold, you have no space, no time.

so before the big bang that manifold existed the bang just expanded it right? (or that is what i understood when i did some research on string theory).

 

[Chalnoth]

so before the big bang that manifold existed the bang just expanded it right? (or that is what i understood when i did some research on string theory).

No. Time is a direction within the manifold. There is no "before" or "after" outside of it.

 

[FizixFreak]

No. Time is a direction within the manifold. There is no "before" or "after" outside of it.

time is a direction?
i didn't quite understood that.

 

[Chalnoth]

time is a direction?
i didn't quite understood that.

Yes. In the same way that up/down, east/west, and north/south are directions.

 

[FizixFreak]

Yes. In the same way that up/down, east/west, and north/south are directions.

but if you call time as direction it means it existed before the big bang?
and does the time represents all known direction or just one specific direction.

 

[Chalnoth]

but if you call time as direction it means it existed before the big bang?
and does the time represents all known direction or just one specific direction.

No, because the direction only has meaning within the manifold. It doesn't have meaning outside of the manifold.

 

[Chronos]

Science tries to avoid the 'God' hypothesis. Not because scientists hate 'God', but, because they wish to explain as much as possible about the universe without resorting to 'miracles' [which history has proven to be a bad idea]. I have no problem accomodating a 'God' in my universe, just understanding the role s/he plays.