Is There a Hidden Cause Behind the Big Bang?

[elegysix]

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]

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]

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

[phinds]

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 physicist 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_prefix#Table_of_number_prefixes_in_English", 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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[elegysix]

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.

Show it.

 

[DaveC426913]

Show it.

Read a book on the subject. It's not my job to edumacate you on Cosmology.

 

[granpa]

1/t is defined everywhere except at t=0

but division is teh inverse of multiplication which is well defined everywhere.

cause and effect is undefined at t=0

cause and effect is just a different way of looking at some other function
which is well defined everywhere including at t=0

I have suggested above that instead of saying that an event is caused by previous events that it might be better to say that it is influenced by previous events

 

[elegysix]

What book? Never heard of such things. "too hot for matter to exist" - never ever heard of such an idea. How could you calculate anything if the rules were different? you would have nothing to go on.

 

[DaveC426913]

What book? Never heard of such things. "too hot for matter to exist" - never ever heard of such an idea.

Then what on Earth are you doing making assertions on the subject about which you haven't bothered to learn even the basics?

Start with Wiki http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_Big_Bang" .

 

[elegysix]

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.

From the wiki link you gave "All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period."

Enough said. You are plainly wrong. Perhaps you should have read about it.

 

[DaveC426913]

From the wiki link you gave "All ideas concerning the very early universe (cosmogony) are speculative. No accelerator experiments have yet probed energies of sufficient magnitude to provide any experimental insight into the behavior of matter at the energy levels that prevailed during this period."

Enough said. You are plainly wrong. Perhaps you should have read about it.

I said calculate. I didn't say demonstrate in a lab.

Being wrong would require there being a better theory. Currently, the BB is the best model we have, and the next competitors are far behind.

Seriously, you have wasted everyone's time making assertions when you have not bothered to read up on the subject.

Go do some reading.

 

[elegysix]

I said evidence. There is no evidence supporting creation in this theory. That has been my point all along.
So what if things behaved differently and the forces were unified. That says nothing about creation. Nothing at all.
Any 'conditions' you have for creation have been assumed, not derived.

 

[Chronos]

Eleg, you are so far off base you are not even out. Mathematics is for physics, which deals with how things happen. Philosophy deals with why things happen. Most scientists are terrible philosophers.

 

[elegysix]

Listen here... conservation of energy is a well known law, and the creation part of BB has no evidence, nor can you derive the conditions for creation - it is assumed. So take your pick.

 

[Chronos]

Conservation of energy does not apply in GR.

 

[Fredrik]

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)?

Questions about reality can only be answered by theories that define the terms in the question. Different theories define "the big bang" differently. There is no theory that describes an initial singularity that was caused by something else. There are however theories in which the big bang isn't an initial singularity. For example, I think there are theories of inflation that define the big bang as a phase transition that creates a ****load of particles of the type we are familiar with from the type of matter that existed before. In these theories, the universe was already large when this happened. So in these theories, it makes sense to talk about a cause. Unfortunately, I don't know these theories.

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.

You have a few good ideas, but some of your conclusions are wrong. I agree that there's no good reason to think there was a t=0. (There is no t=0 in the original big bang theory, which is just the claim that the large-scale behavior of the universe is approximately described by a FLRW solution). It's not true that the universe is either infinite or simply ends somewhere. There are other options, but you need some fairly sophisticated mathematics to understand them.

I haven't read enough of this thread to understand what the discussion is about, so all I can say about "creation" and "conservation of energy" is that since there's no theory that claims that something was created out of nothing, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

 

[elegysix]

Conservation of energy does not apply in GR.

Agreed, but in GR there is the energy-momentum tensor,

"Matter and geometry must satisfy Einstein's equations, so in particular, the matter's energy-momentum tensor must be divergence-free."

Which is a similar conservation principle.

The third sentence written under "Model-Building" @ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity#Definition_and_basic_properties

 

[elegysix]

I haven't read enough of this thread to understand what the discussion is about, so all I can say about "creation" and "conservation of energy" is that since there's no theory that claims that something was created out of nothing, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss.

Well played sir, I was of the impression that BBT claimed to be the creation of the universe, out of nothing. I believe I was taught that idea back in elementary school, but now that I've specifically researched this, I realized BB does not include creation.

I will still assert though that our conservation laws mean creation is impossible, where some people have claimed it does not for various reasons.

 

[juanrga]

I will still assert though that our conservation laws mean creation is impossible, where some people have claimed it does not for various reasons.

No really, there exists the idea of the «free lunch» in cosmology.

Essentially says that

0 = matter + gravitation

just as 0 = 5 - 5

 

[elegysix]

If you read some of the older posts, several people reasoned for creation - saying our rules would not apply outside our universe, before creation...

 

[juanrga]

If you read some of the older posts, several people reasoned for creation - saying our rules would not apply outside our universe, before creation...

Well, I also wrote something about that in an older post

 

[DaveC426913]

Listen here... conservation of energy is a well known law,

It is a law conditional of the universe being the way it currently is. This is understood. Don't know about you, but we were taught that as far back as grade school.

We know (regardless of the validity BB theory) that the universe was not always the way it is. That's incontrovertible.

No serious scientist thinks Conservation of Energy applies outside its scope.

and the creation part of BB has no evidence...

The bones of the Big Bang litter every inch of space.

The cmbr is direct first-hand evidence of the BB itself. (Would you know that, not having read about it?)There's no competing theory for how our universe is the way it is. No other theory explains what we see.

Or are you also over at the paleontology forums arguing that there's no evidence dinosaurs never existed because we don't have first-hand exemplars of them...

elegy, you have freely admitted to ignorance of the fundamentals of the theory being discussed (https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3587843&postcount=76). Your previous assertions and any future assertions on the subject are without meaning.