Why did Big Bang happened in the first place?
The following is a science-based speculation. I'm reserve the right to be irresponsible if I got this all wrong.Phobos said:There are a few science-based ideas about it, but there's no well-supported/strong theory to explain it. Perhaps some of the other members would like to mention a few of those ideas here.
The best explanation I know is the one according to string theory. Where 2 5-dimensional branes collide with each other and produce a huge amount of energy which makes our universe. Otherwise I think we don't have squat to explain it.afton said:Why did Big Bang happened in the first place?
Without a doubt!timken said:Needless to say, there are a few loose ends here.
Well the theory is that spacetime is in a constant state of fluctuation. There are virtual particles appearing and disappearing all around us all the time in numbers that could easily be thought of as infinite. This is the nature of spacetime. Although, the idea that the universe began as a quantum fluctuation does seem to suggest that spacetime fluctuations existed prior to the actual creation of the universe and therefore spacetime itself must have existed. Maybe just not in any permanent form of matter like we see today.timken said:For example, if we started from a random fluctuation wouldn’t there have been a need for space/time to contain the random fluctuation?
I actually think about this a lot.timken said:What’s to stop another random fluctuation happening now within our universe?
The problem with many of these theories is that you need to be more than just a genius. You also need to be highly educated in mathematics, as well as being highly creative in your thinking. Even then you don't get anywhere. But instead of getting headaches you go into some sort of blissful state of euphoria where you don't really care what it all means anymore. You just get high on the mystical elegance of the mathematical symmetries and end up becoming an abstract-junkie.timken said:Questions, questions, I’m getting a headache. Are there any geniuses out there with some suggestions.
I feel the same way about the brane theory. It's just all too speculative. We don't even have any evidence that branes even exist.Chronos said:I don't find brane collisions very satisfactory. Still leaves the question begging 'where did branes come from,...
That may be the case (could you supply a reference regarding QFT and inflation?) but the flat fields of quantum physics and the curved space-time of GR do not play together well. This is a huge problem for the people trying to extend gravity to the quantum level. My (admittedly amateur and math-challenged) readings in this field lead me to believe that when curved space-time is interpreted as "practically" flat on Planck scales, some kinematic models of gravitation might be tenable, but right now, dynamical models of quantum gravitation in a GR framework still seem hopelessly out of reach.NeutronStar said:I feel the same way about the brane theory. It's just all too speculative. We don't even have any evidence that branes even exist.
All I know, (and I could be terribly wrong about this), is that inflation has something to do with the mathematics of QFT and the Higgs field. It's my understanding that QFT predicts inflation somehow.