seriously disabled Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Assuming that matter and energy cannot come from nothing (and there really is no evidence that they can) and assuming that there really is no God, then what really caused the big bang? What caused time to suddenly start ticking from t = 0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 No one knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Think of time and space emerging from a pre-existing state as it inflated rather than the whole universe popping into existence at t=0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Assuming that matter and energy cannot come from nothing (and there really is no evidence that they can) and assuming that there really is no God, then what really caused the big bang? What caused time to suddenly start ticking from t = 0? In all honesty, we still don't know. We don't yet have the physics to describe the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Now if this was in speculation (perhaps where it should be), I may say that we caused the "big bang", by "we" I mean CERN, We put a lot of energy into these particle collisions, which then decay, where do they decay to? If there are other dimensions which cern will be looking for perhaps each of these decay paths are "big bangs" and we are the result of our own creation(chicken/egg) which came first? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Now if this was in speculation (perhaps where it should be), I may say that we caused the "big bang", by "we" I mean CERN, We put a lot of energy into these particle collisions, which then decay, where do they decay to? If there are other dimensions which cern will be looking for perhaps each of these decay paths are "big bangs" and we are the result of our own creation(chicken/egg) which came first? And now we can see why, "We don't know yet" is a much better explanation than guesswork based on ignorance of the situation. Btw, if you're going to pursue this line, it should be in Speculations. We have a mainstream answer to this question. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshaker Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 And now we can see why, "We don't know yet" is a much better explanation than guesswork based on ignorance of the situation. Btw, if you're going to pursue this line, it should be in Speculations. We have a mainstream answer to this question. "DON'T KNOW" great answer thread finished. I was only saying unless that is all "serious disabled" wants great, but if he wanted peoples thoughts on what caused the big bang he perhaps should have put it in speculation. I do not like your condescending "ignorance of the situation" remark, I am not in ignorance of the situation. But do like to think on possibilities instead of don't know i have not been told yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vexen Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 Lawrence Krawss provides a good hypothesis to answer this question. His explanation pertains to the "strangeness" of quantum mechanics. Check out his youtube videos or maybe somebody here could explain his ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phi for All Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I do not like your condescending "ignorance of the situation" remark, I am not in ignorance of the situation. But do like to think on possibilities instead of don't know i have not been told yet. It wasn't meant to be condescending, because you ARE in ignorance of the situation, just like the rest of us. We can't know what really caused the Big Bang. Even the theory only explains what happened very shortly after it started, and the way it's developed. There's a big difference between thinking on the possibilities, speculating by using what we know to support what we want to find out, and guessing based on intuition and what feels right. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 42 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg H. Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 ... what feels right. In GR, QM, and cosmology, if it feels right, it's probably the opposite of the right answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasualKilla Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) It is mind bending to think about it since, it is highly probable time itself did not exist before the big bang, that probably means the singularity was created and destroyed/expanded in the same instant, similar to how a photon is created and destroyed in the same instant relative to itself. But then again, photons don't experience time, and they exist happily and interact with a world that does experience time. It must be possible that the singularity could have existed in a similar environment where it interacted with time experiencing entities (TEE's ) So I think it is possible the singularity existed for a finite amount of time relative to some external object/environment and maby even interacted with it. Edited March 30, 2015 by CasualKilla 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) ...with time experiencing entities (TEE's ) Funny +1 So I think it is possible the singularity existed for a finite amount of time relative to some external object/environment. First off: a singularity is a mathemathical artifact that doesn't reflect what happened; it's just a natural conclusion from GR which doesn't seem to be correct, apparently. Assuming it did exist, it is necessary to envisage the entire universe as the singularity, so, there's no 'outside' to take a reference from.or be relative to. Edited March 30, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasualKilla Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Funny +1 First off: a singularity is a mathemathical artifact that doesn't reflect what happened; it's just a natural conclusion from GR which doesn't seem to be correct, apparently. Assuming it did exist, it is necessary to envisage the entire universe as the singularity, so, there's no 'outside' to take a reference from.or be relative to. True, but that is only if you assume the universe is the only thing that exists. Surly it is still viable that the singularity existed on/in a braine in a higher dimensional plain? I don't see a problem with singularity that does not experience time, isn't that what a blackhole is? I guess the difference would be a blackhole does not contain infinite energy, but then again, do we know if our universe contains infinite energy? Edited March 30, 2015 by CasualKilla Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) True, but that is only if you assume the universe is the only thing that exists. Surly it is still viable that the singularity existed on/in a braine in a higher dimensional plain? I don't see a problem with singularity that does not experience time, isn't that what a blackhole is? In the absence of substantive theory, prior to the BB anything's possible. For me personally, talking about parellel universes, branes etc we might as well just say "It's turtles all the way down". I don't see a problem with no time in a singularity either because, it seems, that there was no space and, as such, everything was causally connected and probably behaved synchronistically. Even if there wasn't a singularity, but a just very dense universe, the idea still holds. Edited March 30, 2015 by StringJunky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasualKilla Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 In the absence of substantive theory, prior to the BB anything's possible. For me personally, talking about parellel universes, branes etc we might as well just say "It's turtles all the way down". I don't see a problem with no time in a singularity either because, it seems, that there was no space and, as such, everything was causally connected and probably behaved synchronistically. Even if there wasn't a singularity, but a just very dense universe, the idea still holds. The problem with that thinking is you cannot explain why the universe should begin with a big bang, because you have banded the realm of existence within the singularity and the expansion of the singularity. You avoid even having to explain the cause of the singularity because if isolated, it can have no cause. I think it is perfectly valid to ask how the singularity was created, or why it existed, because as I have already shown, just because something is devoid of time, does not mean it cannot interact with TEE's and is except from causality. I cannot accept that something just existed without cause, unless said thing is almost irreducible simple. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think it is perfectly valid to ask how the singularity was created, or why it existed There is no reason to think it existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 The problem with that thinking is you cannot explain why the universe should begin with a big bang, because you have banded the realm of existence within the singularity and the expansion of the singularity. You avoid even having to explain the cause of the singularity because if isolated, it can have no cause. I think it is perfectly valid to ask how the singularity was created, or why it existed, because as I have already shown, just because something is devoid of time, does not mean it cannot interact with TEE's and is except from causality. I cannot accept that something just existed without cause, unless said thing is almost irreducible simple. I don't think it did begin with the BB; that was just some phase in its evolution. Besides, if time began with the BB, does it even make any sense the unverse having 'a beginning', since that implies time existing before it? Once you take time out of the equation, all bets are off what things looked like.pre-BB. We don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) There is an excellent paper on time in regards to BB. It depends on the model used. Cyclic universes for example time always exists. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1947"On the physical basis of cosmic time" stating time isn't present prior to BB may or may not be accurate. Oops first one is the physical basis of Cosmological time. Another excellent paper just not the right one. I'll keep it posted as it is an excellent reference. Here is the correct paper Time before Time - Classifications of universes in contemporary cosmology, and how to avoid the antinomy of the beginning and eternity of the world http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0408111 Edited March 31, 2015 by Mordred 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ..There is an excellent paper on time in regards to BB. It depends on the model used. Cyclic universes for example time always exists. http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.1947"On the physical basis of cosmic time" stating time isn't present prior to BB may or may not be accurate. I have no steadfast ideas about this. I try to work with what we know and then try and fix things without adding unnecessary bits. I don't let go of commonsense until I have to and in this scenario there's no need to invoke 'other worlds' or 'beginnings'. The abstract you linked doesn't contradict - as I'm interpreting it anyway - my interpretation, which I don't think is far off the mainstream, if at all. I hope not because that's what I'm trying to learn! . We find that a first problem arises above the quark-gluon phase transition (which roughly occurs when the cosmological model is extrapolated back to ∼10−5 seconds) where there might be no bound systems left, and the concept of a physical length scale to a certain extent disappears. A more serious problem appears above the electroweak phase transition believed to occur at ∼10−11 seconds. At this point the property of mass (almost) disappears and it becomes difficult to identify a physical basis for concepts like length scale, energy scale and temperature -- which are all intimately linked to the concept of time in modern cosmology. This situation suggests that the concept of a time scale in `very early' universe cosmology lacks a physical basis or, at least, that the time scale will have to be based on speculative new physics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordred Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) I have no steadfast ideas about this. I try to work with what we know and then try and fix things without adding unnecessary bits. I don't let go of commonsense until I have to and in this scenario there's no need to invoke 'other worlds' or 'beginnings'. The abstract you linked doesn't contradict - as I'm interpreting it anyway - my interpretation, which I don't think is far off the mainstream, if at all. I hope not because that's what I'm trying to learn! That's fine and we'll and good, but it's based on a feeling rather than actual evidence of how the universe started and thus when time started. One has to keep in mind we cannot see past the dark ages as light has too short a mean length path of freedom. The universe is too dense and obscure prior to reionization. So we can never see the BB in action or measure it directly. Least not (possibly) till we can detect the cosmic neutrino background. So our knowledge prior to CMB depends on indirect studies in particle physics and the ideal gas laws. Loop quantum gravity for example is a model where a previous universe collapses and the bounces, (expands) to form our universe. It's metrics is equally compatible and accurate as LCDM hot big bang model. Statements like time starting when our universe started isn't necessarily true. The answers given are more based on beginning models and personal philosophy. The only accurate answer is, as we don't know how our universe began, we cannot determine if time was present prior to our universe Lawrence Krauss model is based on the zero energy universe. It is one of the few models where a universe can start from nothing. There is too many models of universe beginnings all equally valid until proven wrong. To name them all, the classifications is bounce,cyclic, original bubble etc. Chaotic eternal inflation is an example of bubble universe (multiverse). Edited March 31, 2015 by Mordred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 ..Statements like time starting when our universe started isn't necessarily true. The answers given are more based on beginning models and personal philosophy. The only accurate answer is, as we don't know how our universe began, we cannot determine if time was present prior to our universe I know it's not necessarily true. If time and space are connected and universe is in a dense state then I don't see it as necessary for those two parameters to have emerged because everything is instantaneously connected - the same process is happening throughout the universe. Information is not travelling anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CasualKilla Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 There is no reason to think it existed. It is a logical conclusion of the theory, of-course there is a reason to think it existed.. If not a singularity, then what do you propose? Or are you happy to deny the idea of a singularity but not propose a counter hypothesis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strange Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 (edited) It is a logical conclusion of the theory, of-course there is a reason to think it existed.. There is no reason to think that a singularity represents any kind of physical reality. It is more plausible that it indicates that the theory is being extended beyond its domain - because it doesn't take quantum effects into account, for example. Or are you happy to deny the idea of a singularity but not propose a counter hypothesis? Yes. "I/we don't know" is always a good answer (especially in science.) Edited March 31, 2015 by Strange Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StringJunky Posted March 31, 2015 Share Posted March 31, 2015 It is a logical conclusion of the theory, of-course there is a reason to think it existed.. If not a singularity, then what do you propose? Or are you happy to deny the idea of a singularity but not propose a counter hypothesis? It could have still been in a hot dense state without being a singularity. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now