Cause of origin of Universe

  1. 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)?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. asking what is 1/x at x=0 is also meaningless but that doesnt mean that math is "without any logic".
     
  4. quantum mechancs provides a "cause"...quantum fluctuations...for virtual particles...

    so I disagree with your premise and your conclusion.


    Try reading here:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particles

    and here :

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuations

    where the mathematic underpinning is mentioned:

    But so far there is no proof, no incontrovertible evidence, no consensus, on exactly what caused the big bang. I don't think anyone has a theory yet on whether virtual particles actually "caused" the big bang...
     
  5. The size of the universe before the Big Bang is only speculated no one really knows how big or small it was. The cause of the Big Bang or inflation would not be dictated by the size of that singularity. Everything has a cause so if particles are popping in and out of existance (quantum fluctuation) then there is a cause. And there is much speculation it.
     
  6. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,233
    Gold Member

    This is actually very much in line with some popular theories of the origin of the BB. It is speculated that, indeed, it erupted from some sort of proto-quantum-fluctuation state that normally collapses back on itself almost instantly - like virtual particle pairs do - but in this case, for some reason did not collapse back to nothing, and instead expanded rapidly, creating the entire universe.
     
  7. If the Universe is spatially flat and has infinite mass and energy then the OU may have been smaller than a proton but the entire U would still have been infinite. At least that is how I understand it.
     
  8. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,233
    Gold Member

    Those are some big 'if's. Why would it have infinite mass and energy?
     
  9. phinds

    phinds 8,776
    Gold Member

    I take this two ways, Dave. First, I think things DO have reasons, even if we don't understand them. Second, in QM, a valid reason is "s*** happens". :smile:
     
  10. Suppose the reason for expansion is found as told by dave, what would be the reason for that reason. And so on.....

    Is origin of of this universe really that simple a matter? Or we have to retrace our steps infinitely?
     
  11. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,233
    Gold Member

    It is called "First Cause". And we may never know the answer.
     
  12. Your "first cause" seems to be above reasoning and science even, that it does not require any "cause" for its occurenece. I think we should shun science and start believing in magic.LOL
     
  13. Upon rereading, I see I should have also said I agree with this part of the OP:

     
  14. its not that we cant find the answer.
    its that we are asking th ewrong question.

    asking what is the cause of the first cause is simply a meaningless question.
     
  15. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,233
    Gold Member

    I agree our idea of cause and effect may have to be rethought when it comes to the origin of the universe, but simply asking what caused the BB is not meaningless, in my view.
     
  16. phinds

    phinds 8,776
    Gold Member

    I think there MAY be meaningless questions, but that certainly isn't one of them. I agree w/ what Dave said.
     
  17. Yeh, there is no reason we can't figure out what caused things in our universe but before and beyond are another thing, Who knows
     
  18. Ever heard of deep space imaging? If you believe that at some time in the past, our universe was a point which exploded and you know that light travels at a finite speed, then logically, the deeper you look into space, the further back in time you are seeing. Therefore, upon the deepest glance into space, we would inevitably have to see the big bang from within it. Either we are seeing the ultra-dense universe in that time, or we would be seeing outside our universe. The latter is simply impossible by our definition of the universe.

    the question I wonder is why haven't we seen something like this. Perhaps things are not so cut and dried as we assume they are.
     
  19. I am reminded of the kid who told the pizza man that he wasnt that hungry so he should only cut the pizza into 6 pieces rather than 8.

    it makes no difference how you cut it, its still a meaningless question.

    if the first cause had a cause then it wouldnt be the first cause.

    we may ask what the first cause was but we cant ask what caused it.
     
  20. DaveC426913

    DaveC426913 16,233
    Gold Member

    We do.

    It's called the cosmic microwave background radiation or surface of last scattering. This is the actual remnants of the Big Bang.
     
  21. Interesting. didn't know those were associated
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share a link to this question via email, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?