What triggered the BIG BANG?

[gisburnuk]

The question I ask is: What triggered the big bang?

 

Please note I am an atheist and do not rely on religion to provide answers to our existence.

 

If the big bang created atoms (by chance) , electrons, photons, quarks, forces, during its lifetime and everything we can or cannot observe in the universe,then would it be true to say that we shall never know what started the big bang?

 

Look at it another way...

 

To speculate on what triggered the big bang we have to ignore any matter we know about in our universe, because how can we use the physics in our universe to answer the trigger point (spark) in the big bang when it was the big bang that provided our physics?

 

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061114035624AAtbICQ&r=w#Q5AsWTO0UjjiSUIprp.xVz870XMpzJtWBGzGvzPNzjAr9jOCSPAC

[Edtharan]

From what I understand, it was Qm that created the Big Bang.

 

The uncertainty principle states that if you are certain about the time then you are uncertain about the energy. So for a short enough period of time (The Planck Time), massive amounts of energy (enough to kick start the universe) can occur.

 

QM also states that past and future at the Planck Time can not be resolved and that an effect can occur before the cause.

 

Put together at the Big Bang, this means that the effect (The Big Bang) could occur before the cause (a massive amount of energy due to the uncertainty principle).

[bascule]

The question I ask is: What triggered the big bang?

 

The formation of a black hole in a fecund universe, according to Lee Smolin and his associates.

[woelen]

Well to be honest, we do not know (yet). There are theories, but all of them still are quite speculative.

[ParanoiA]

From what I understand, it was Qm that created the Big Bang.

 

The uncertainty principle states that if you are certain about the time then you are uncertain about the energy. So for a short enough period of time (The Planck Time), massive amounts of energy (enough to kick start the universe) can occur.

 

 

But isn't the uncertainty principle rooted in the logistical problem of being able to pin point the time without effecting velocity? And vice versa so to speak?

 

I point that out, because isn't it plausible that at some point we may be able to pinpoint the time without effecting the velocity? Therefore isn't the uncertainty principle essentially a recognition of man's inability rather than a law of nature?

 

In other words, maybe massive amounts of energy could occur because we don't know, not because the uncertainty principle says so. I'm not explaining myself very well here, but it does seem different to me.

[psynapse]

well the uncertainty principal has to do with a law of physics not man's inability to be accurate, If a particle is moving around with a velocity and we want to pin point its position we would need to detect the particle, If say it's an electron and we fire a photon at it to try and "find it" when that photon hits it we know for a fact we had it's position right only now that photon has given the electron more energy and it went whizzing off in a direction it wouldn't have if we had left it alone. Not only that but now it's velocity is completely unknown to us. One thing is certain but the more accurate we measure the one variable the more uncertain the other becomes. That's the principal in a nutshell.

[ParanoiA]

well the uncertainty principal has to do with a law of physics not man's inability to be accurate, If a particle is moving around with a velocity and we want to pin point its position we would need to detect the particle, If say it's an electron and we fire a photon at it to try and "find it" when that photon hits it we know for a fact we had it's position right only now that photon has given the electron more energy and it went whizzing off in a direction it wouldn't have if we had left it alone. Not only that but now it's velocity is completely unknown to us. One thing is certain but the more accurate we measure the one variable the more uncertain the other becomes. That's the principal in a nutshell.

 

Right, man's inability to pinpoint it. Every technique we use to detect it, interferes with it. Seems obvious to me that's our problem. Not a law of physics, rather a law of interpretation of physics in this case. We have to use the uncertainty principle because we are not certain.

 

Just a thought. I'm no physicist, but I did stay at a holiday inn last night...

[psynapse]

Well I suppose when you put it that way...

The Holiday Inn has me sold. LOL. I do see your point and I see where you are going. There must be a method to measure both at the same time kinda deal using methods yet to be discovered by man, I see.

[GutZ]

My theory is an exploding black hole (Or maybe implosion )! Don't ask me how it got there though.

 

and with the uncertainty principal, I don't think you can gather information without some form of interaction. Which I guess could be said that the condition to measure is physically uncontrollable, therefore being a physics problem. Though If you could measure the effects of a single electrons influence on it's enviroment like space and that something like that would have a relation, you could possibly measure it indirectly, but who know if that indirect measurement doesn't affect the electron.

[ParanoiA]

My theory is an exploding black hole (Or maybe implosion )! Don't ask me how it got there though.

 

and with the uncertainty principal, I don't think you can gather information without some form of interaction. Which I guess could be said that the condition to measure is physically uncontrollable, therefore being a physics problem. Though If you could measure the effects of a single electrons influence on it's enviroment like space and that something like that would have a relation, you could possibly measure it indirectly, but who know if that indirect measurement doesn't affect the electron.

 

Yeah, that's a discussion in itself really. I remember being let down a little after realizing that when using a meter in an electrical circuit introduces error or deviation at least, since you're adding your meter circuit into the circuit being tested. So, then you have to account for the changes in that arrangement - which sure takes the fun out of it.

[Klaynos]

We do not know what caused the big bang. There are alot of theories for it but one of the problems is that our laws of physics do not hold for the 'time' 'before' the big bang.

 

And uncertainty is a physical bound to any theoretical 'measurement' by anything, so two particles interacting with each other is a measurement so neither can respond to the other more accurately than the uncertainty principle whether a human is there or not.

 

My favorite idea is:

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925423.600&feedId=online-news_rss20

[gib65]

If a particle is moving around with a velocity and we want to pin point its position we would need to detect the particle, If say it's an electron and we fire a photon at it to try and "find it" when that photon hits it we know for a fact we had it's position right only now that photon has given the electron more energy and it went whizzing off in a direction it wouldn't have if we had left it alone.

 

How do we go about measuring its velocity? Wouldn't we have to get its position at two points in time? Wouldn't the first measure of position effect its velocity?

 

Anyway, about the Big Bang - it's my understanding that time and space were created with BB (or at least, that's one hypothesis). If this is true, there was no time before BB and so there could be no causal process that brought it about. This is really hard to swallow which is one of the reasons I tend to believe in a non-spatial/non-temporal existence before BB (of course it wouldn't be "before" BB - maybe omnipresent? ).

[psynapse]

^ that's a good point I don't know how you would do that tbh. I guess I wasn't thinking.

[ParanoiA]

How do we go about measuring its velocity? Wouldn't we have to get its position at two points in time? Wouldn't the first measure of position effect its velocity?

 

I would say yes, but the ambiguity is in the fact that we could reduce the light frequency, thereby reducing the energy of the photon so its effect on the electron at impact is minimal - for a more accurate measurement of its velocity. But then, with the light wave length being so much longer, the accuracy of its position is now less accurate. So you either get one or the other. That's the uncertainty principle as I understand it anyway.

 

I'm still trying to fully absorb Klaynos' statement on the matter. Or at least the consequences of it.

[gib65]

^ that's a good point I don't know how you would do that tbh. I guess I wasn't thinking.

 

I wouldn't say you weren't thinking. I think the way you described it is the way it actually works. My questions were quite honest - I really wanted to know (and ParanoiA kindly answered).

[Edtharan]

I would say yes, but the ambiguity is in the fact that we could reduce the light frequency, thereby reducing the energy of the photon so its effect on the electron at impact is minimal - for a more accurate measurement of its velocity. But then, with the light wave length being so much longer, the accuracy of its position is now less accurate. So you either get one or the other. That's the uncertainty principle as I understand it anyway.

The other problem with this approach is that an object only interacts with waves (electromagnetic waves = light) of a similar size or smaller. So to look at a small particle (or at least fix its position to a certain point) would need a very high energy (and thus small wavelength) light to detect it.

[Spyman]

The question I ask is: What triggered the big bang?

How the Universe was like at time zero and if it had a triggering cause is not yet known.

 

If the big bang created atoms (by chance) , electrons, photons, quarks, forces, during its lifetime and everything we can or cannot observe in the universe,then would it be true to say that we shall never know what started the big bang?

If the spark created nature then it's a question of faith but if nature created the spark then it's a question of science and so far it seems like science is closing in on time zero and has not ruled out the possibility to explain the mechanics behind what started Big Bang.

 

To speculate on what triggered the big bang we have to ignore any matter we know about in our universe, because how can we use the physics in our universe to answer the trigger point (spark) in the big bang when it was the big bang that provided our physics?

I don't think the laws that govern moder nature, (our physics), has changed or may change, it's only our understanding that is incomplete and not yet able to explain the "spark" or what was before.

 

But our knowledge is growing and our understanding is getting better, whilst we may never know everything, we will eventually have enough knowledge to provide answers about the cause or ignition of Big Bang.

[gib65]

It also depends on whether or not spacetime was created with the BB. I get the impression that most scientist believe this to be the case, but I've heard other theories that say otherwise. For example, there is the theory that our universe is actually a 3D "brane" that exists parallel to another 3D "brane" (a parallel universe). These branes can be imagined as 2D planes for the sake of any thought experiments you might want to conduct. The theory says that these branes ripple and flap like waves on the ocean, and once and a while, you get a wave peek in one brane colliding with a wave trough in a parallel brane, and BANG!!!

 

I know this kind of talk - with words like "branes", "parallel universes", "waves and ripples in the space fabric" - is shunned upon by a lot of respectable scientists - but I'm not advocating this view. But I do think that those who do advocate it are well educated, highly intelligent people, and if spacetime absolutely had to be created with BB, they probably would have taken this into account. Since they seem to think this isn't necessarily the case, I'm going to assume there could have been a spacetime continuum before BB.

[Spyman]

I thought I covered the spacetime part with moder nature, either spacetime can be created by nature or is a property of it, if created then there is a process for it, some mechanics with rules, which can be explored by science, if a property then science can only explain how spacetime works.

 

Sorry, if it sounds like I am playing with words here, I am not arguing with you, but there is a slight difference and I think the difference also somewhat determines the border between faith and science.

 

Extrapolated into the past, these observations show that the universe has expanded from a state in which all the matter and energy in the universe was at an immense temperature and density. Physicists do not widely agree on what happened before this, although general relativity predicts a gravitational singularity.

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

 

Somehow I have the opposite impression that most scientists don't believe spacetime was created with the start of BB. A important thing to remember here is that BB is an old theory which has changed since the start, my old physic book for instance says "Big Bang was an explosion in space", and as a result we have lots of simplified articles for the general public which not necessarily reflects what scientists think today.

 

OK, I don't know any scientists which works in these areas and as such my impression could be wrong, it's only from reading between the lines and comments such as the bolded part from Wikipedia above. No disagreement here either, the varity and quantity of theories indicates that we don't know and are trying to find out.

 

The only thing pointing towards a creation of spacetime in the beginning of BB is the extrapolation backwards in time with GR where the result is a singularity. And I have been told in this forum that "in physics the singularity is an indication of an incomplete understanding".

 

Evidence we have is in favor of a infinite spacetime, we are not able to penetrate far enough back in time to say spacetime disappears at time X, we have spacetime now and most likely spacetime will not disappear at time Y in the future.

 

So I think it's safe to assume there was spacetime before BB, until proven otherwise.

[Ragib]

People here are confused about Heisenberg's uncertainty Principle. You can NEVER measure perfectly, even with perfect methods. It is not an observer effect, but rather an inherent uncertainty. The particle itself does not know what state it is in, unless its wave function collapses. God himself, if he exists, would not be able to measure better.

[solo]

The formation of a black hole in a fecund universe, according to Lee Smolin and his associates.

Most elegant hypothesis yet conceived IMHO..................solo