What started the Big Bang?

[Philosophy Explorer]

"Grandpa, Grandpa."

"Yes, what is it?"

"Today in science class we talked about the Big Bang."

Grandpa: "So?"

Grandson: "I asked the teacher what started the Big Bang and he replied that it was a work in progress. What does that mean?"

Grandpa: "It means that it is still under investigation."

Grandson: "Isn't it true that every cause has an effect?"

Grandpa: "Yes, that is true."

Grandson: "I wonder what started the Big Bang?"

Do you have any ideas what started the Big Bang? What are the thoughts of the top scientists in the field? (note: this has been discussed a year ago. We have new members and maybe new theory on this question. What say you to this?)

PhilX

[Bohm2]

Grandson: "Isn't it true that every cause has an effect?"

I posted this previously but there are models that allow for existence without cause:

1. Block Universe model -where time is treated like space and the past, present and future are always existing (e.g. it's all there at once) analogous to the way the projector of the movie is to the sequence of frames on the film. The universe did not "emerge from nothing". It is meaningless to talk of the "start" of the universe, or the "emergence of the universe from nothing", or any other term which implies change of the entire block universe structure over time. The entire spacetime block is laid out as one unchanging structure. Here's a quote from Stephen Hawking's book "A Brief History of Time": "If the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be." This means that any theory which attempts to explain the existence of the universe solely in terms of events which happened at the Big Bang would appear to be plain wrong. This includes any theory which suggests the reason for the existence of the universe is because the universe "emerged from nothing" (so-called ex nihilo solutions).

2. Peter Lynd's model -the author tries to reconcile: How is there a universe when the seemingly only 2 options for its lifetime, finite or infinite, both result in contradiction? The reason being is if one argues that the universe is finite, there is the problem of first cause and infinite regress and if one argues that the universe is infinite, then the leads to another type of infinite regress. The author ends up arguing that time must be cyclic and so existence can be both eternal and finite:

Many believe that the deep question of “why is there something rather than nothing?” is unanswerable. The universe just is and no further explanation for its existence is possible. In this paper I explain why this question must have an answer, and why that answer must establish that physical existence is inescapable and necessary. Based on the conclusion that if the universe is eternal rather than having a beginning some finite time in the past, the universe has to exist rather than not because its possible non-existence is never an option, such an explanation is put forward.

Why there is something rather than nothing-The finite, infinite and eternal
http://lanl.arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/ ... 5.2720.pdf

On a Finite Universe with no Beginning or End
http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0612/0612053.pdf

The interesting part of Lynd's model is that it provides an answer to Kant's paradox:

1. If the universe extends back infinitely in time it leads to contradiction because if time extended back forever, there would be an infinite period of time before any event and hence no starting point so it would be impossible for the universe to evolve forward.

2. If the universe began at some finite time (e.g. beginning) in the past – it also results in contradiction since then one can ask what happened beforehand to cause it? And what happended before that...it leads to an infinite regress.

Because his theory asserts that the universe is finite yet also has no beginning or 'first cause', Kant'’s paradox is avoided. I just think the model is really interesting/innovative because it avoids all these problems. So in this model the big bamg is actually caused by the big crunch which really in the future of the big bang. So we have an endless/beginningless universe that is finite. That is very creative.

[Felix]

Thank you Bohm2, I was familiar with the "Block Universe model" by another name. Do you happen to know who first proposed it? And does it imply that reality is strictly determinate, or might it be so only from our time-bound perspective?

"Peter Lynd's model"

That idea is certainly not original, the Vedic rishis proposed it over 3,000 years ago and outline it in the Vedas.

Also, both models #1 & #2 could be true at different levels of consciousness....

[Philosophy Explorer]

Thank you Bohm2, I was familiar with the "Block Universe model" by another name. Do you happen to know who first proposed it? And does it imply that reality is strictly determinate, or might it be so only from our time-bound perspective?

"Peter Lynd's model"

That idea is certainly not original, the Vedic rishis proposed it over 3,000 years ago and outline it in the Vedas.

Also, both models #1 & #2 could be true at different levels of consciousness....

Hi Felix,

In answer to your first question, it seems that this person had proposed the model (also associated with externalism):

John McTaggart Ellis McTaggart, commonly John McTaggart or J. M. E. McTaggart (3 September 1866 – 18 January 1925) was an idealist metaphysician.

That's as far as I can trace it.

PhilX

[ShrimpMaster]

The universe was certainly caused by God.

Necessary characteristics of a first cause: It would need to be immaterial (transcend space) It would need to be timeless (eternal; transcend time) It would have to be extremely powerful (create the universe from nothing)

Not only would the existence of God makes sense of the beginning of the universe, but it would also make sense of the plethora of other data we have in our world regarding objective moral values and duties, and the fine-tuning of the universe for organic life.

[Mechsmith]

The fine-tuning of the universe for organic life.

When I was young I remember being struck by the miraculous co-incidence that the five little pigs than went to market was exactly the amount that could be counted off with my fingers.

This little pig went to market----

This little pig stayed home----

This little pig had roast beef---

This little pig had none---

This little pig cried we-we-we all the way home.

You may notice that the song is adapted to the fingers, and that life is adapted to the Universe. It took me several months of thinking quietly about this but then I wasnt the sharpest three year old either.

Hapy thinking, M

[Artimas]

"Grandpa, Grandpa."

"Yes, what is it?"

"Today in science class we talked about the Big Bang."

Grandpa: "So?"

Grandson: "I asked the teacher what started the Big Bang and he replied that it was a work in progress. What does that mean?"

Grandpa: "It means that it is still under investigation."

Grandson: "Isn't it true that every cause has an effect?"

Grandpa: "Yes, that is true."

Grandson: "I wonder what started the Big Bang?"

Do you have any ideas what started the Big Bang? What are the thoughts of the top scientists in the field? (note: this has been discussed a year ago. We have new members and maybe new theory on this question. What say you to this?)

PhilX

This is what I have managed to gather so far.

"About 15 billion years ago a tremendous explosion started the expansion of the universe. This explosion is known as the Big Bang. At the point of this event all of the matter and energy of space was contained at one point. What exisisted prior to this event is completely unknown and is a matter of pure speculation. This occurance was not a conventional explosion but rather an event filling all of space with all of the particles of the embryonic universe rushing away from each other. The Big Bang actually consisted of an explosion of space within itself unlike an explosion of a bomb were fragments are thrown outward. The galaxies were not all clumped together, but rather the Big Bang lay the foundations for the universe."

Explosion - "An explosion is a rapid increase in volume and release of energy in an extreme manner, usually with the generation of high temperatures and the release of gases."

"If it were an explosion it would have a center," said physicist Paul Steinhardt, director of the Princeton Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University in Princeton, N.J. "We actually observe that everything is moving away from everything else. It's really about an expansion of the universe ." "


So what gets me, is the first piece I read says that before the big bang there was a point of where all was. One point, could be considered a center, could it not? But the third piece states that there is no center. Is our universe on top or bottom, or perhaps right or left? Can we answer that? No, so then how can we answer if there was or wasn't a center or not. I believe it was an explosion. If everything is spanning outwards, there has to be a center. Perhaps it was a giant atom that created our universe, I just thought of this and looked up an article to see if there was one and there is, here you go, check it out. Tell me what you think, I am still reading.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/blast-of ... -universe/

I personally believe it, because it correlates that our solar system orbit has relation to that of an atoms orbit.

Subatomic told me to google plutos orbit, as well as an atoms. The correlation is there, the orbits are definitely similar.

Atoms orbit- http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ato ... tedIndex=6

Both diagnal orbit.

Pluto's orbit - http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=plu ... tedIndex=0

This would basically mean, we're like many smaller atoms, derived and broken off into pieces of a giant Atom, or perhaps it shouldn't be called an atom. Then there is us, 3rd time passed down, atoms of an atom off of a bigger atom. It's like atom-ception. Who knows though, maybe I am just being foolish and should read more on it.

[Present awareness]

The universe was certainly caused by God.

Necessary characteristics of a first cause: It would need to be immaterial (transcend space) It would need to be timeless (eternal; transcend time) It would have to be extremely powerful (create the universe from nothing)

Not only would the existence of God makes sense of the beginning of the universe, but it would also make sense of the plethora of other data we have in our world regarding objective moral values and duties, and the fine-tuning of the universe for organic life.

However, as soon as you bring God into the equation, there is the problem of " whom created God?".

[Artimas]

The universe was certainly caused by God.

Necessary characteristics of a first cause: It would need to be immaterial (transcend space) It would need to be timeless (eternal; transcend time) It would have to be extremely powerful (create the universe from nothing)

Not only would the existence of God makes sense of the beginning of the universe, but it would also make sense of the plethora of other data we have in our world regarding objective moral values and duties, and the fine-tuning of the universe for organic life.

However, as soon as you bring God into the equation, there is the problem of " whom created God?".

This will just lead to a "god-ception" lol. This is why there is no evidence of "it", because if there were things would be too simple, it would be black and white. The evidence is there, because we don't have simple black and white, we have complex rainbows.

[Misty]

However, as soon as you bring God into the equation, there is the problem of " whom created God?".

Not really since God is infinite.

[Wizard]

• Nothing started the big bang,

• Because the universe is infinite,

• Without beginning nor end.

• The universe never began and will never end.

• No beginning. No end.

[Philosophy Explorer]

• Nothing started the big bang,

• Because the universe is infinite,

• Without beginning nor end.

• The universe never began and will never end.

• No beginning. No end.

Can you prove it? You're running counter to mainstream science that says the BB started the universe. Can you cite any non-Youtube sources from a site that's based on scientists with graduate degrees from accredited institutions supporting your position? And referring to yourself as a source is circular reasoning as you have to prove you're an authority. So can you prove it as no one has been able to?

PhilX

[Wizard]

Only those who claim there is a beginning or end to the universe, are the ones with the onus to prove such a beginning. Do you believe in science, yes? Then as a scientist, you must admit, that you must reproduce results in order to prove a claim. Can you reproduce the beginning of the universe, in a laboratory, no? If you cannot reproduce the universe, then you cannot prove it has a beginning.

Science cannot prove, nor provide evidence, for any "beginning" of the universe. Because there is no beginning. Claiming the existence of a "beginning" to the universe, is similar to claiming god exists. There is no evidence for god, nor any beginning and end to the universe.

[Philosophy Explorer]

Only those who claim there is a beginning or end to the universe, are the ones with the onus to prove such a beginning. Do you believe in science, yes? Then as a scientist, you must admit, that you must reproduce results in order to prove a claim. Can you reproduce the beginning of the universe, in a laboratory, no? If you cannot reproduce the universe, then you cannot prove it has a beginning.

Science cannot prove, nor provide evidence, for any "beginning" of the universe. Because there is no beginning. Claiming the existence of a "beginning" to the universe, is similar to claiming god exists. There is no evidence for god, nor any beginning and end to the universe.

As far as the laboratory goes, it's not necessary to reproduce the beginnings of the universe in a laboratory as scientists with their telescopes observe movements of the galaxies and have calculated, going backwards in time that a Big Bang has occurred so if you can't follow their calculations, that's on you (you don't need to see everything to know that it has happened).

So where is your proof that the universe is infinite? Where is your authority who can establish what you're claiming? So far there's nothing coming from you to counter mainstream science and the Big Bang theory.

PhilX

[Spiral Out]

so if you can't follow their calculations, that's on you (you don't need to see everything to know that it has happened).

That's not a valid argument. It's an argument from authority fallacy.

Although said fallacy is supposedly not applicable to "genuinely knowledgeable entities", aside from the fact that being "genuinely knowledgeable" about such things as the absolute workings of the universe itself is impossible to prove, it is entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

If someone else follows an equally baseless, yet more complex construct that "proves" your own baseless construct wrong then it amounts to nothing more than "he said/she said", especially if you can't follow it.

Mathematics itself and its associated calculations is not a provably accurate representation of the absolute totality of the workings of the "universe", whatever that seems to be.

>>>

Not really since God is infinite.

That's not a valid argument.

What is this "God" you speak of, and what evidence can you provide to support your claim?