First Cause

[sandy whitelinger]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

 

[HonestJoe]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

Not necessarily. It’s perfectly possible that the physical laws within the universe (such as cause and effect) don’t apply to the universe itself. The whole thing is very difficult to even think about given were talking about concepts like “before time” and “everywhere in the same place”. Ultimately, nobody knows though in the scope and scale of our lives, I’m not convinced that fake makes any difference.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not necessarily. It’s perfectly possible that the physical laws within the universe (such as cause and effect) don’t apply to the universe itself. The whole thing is very difficult to even think about given were talking about concepts like “before time” and “everywhere in the same place”. Ultimately, nobody knows though in the scope and scale of our lives, I’m not convinced that fake makes any difference.

So would that make cause and effect a manifestation of the universe?

 

[Electra]

Is the effect of expansion, contraction?

/or do they happen simultaneously, therefore cause and effect are at one and not one after the other.

 

[sayak83]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

Effect is expansion of space. Cause is the decay of what is called the inflationary field, which is a type of Higgs field.

 

[Native]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

IMO all motions in the Universe are eternal and eternally changing. No beginning and no end, but eternal rhythms of creation, governed by the electromagnetic forces and qualities with contraction and expansion.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes, at least in our current understanding, cause and effect are properties of this universe. They are also not universal even within this universe because of quantum effects.

 

[Thief]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

and what is movement without substance?

space is real enough
it's that 'nothing' in between any two pieces of substance

movement needs a cause
an item at rest will remain at rest.....until....'Something' acts upon it

movement can be achieved in one particle....you just can't measure the movement
insufficient reference for the measure

you need to at least two particles either approaching or receding from each other....and a means of measure
to note a movement (as we do nowadays)

movement is not the CAUSE of expansion
movement is the EFFECT of an applied Force

may the Force be with you

 

[bobhikes]

In the beginning the universe was formed by expansion. Simultaneously space began when the movement began. Would not movement have started cause and effect?

In general most things work on a type of remote control because it is easier but every now and then they act differently. Nothing is ever 100% defined. In the same token the start of the universe was just an act of doing something different and for the most part everything tries to just go with the flow but everything gets bored and at different times acts differently. The point is that while cause and effect are the standard the random acts are what makes life, the universe and everything important.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Effect is expansion of space. Cause is the decay of what is called the inflationary field, which is a type of Higgs field.

So the inflationary field existed before the expansion?

 

[Polymath257]

So the inflationary field existed before the expansion?

Not exactly. One problem is that we don't know the specifics of the inflaton field. Is it the Higg's field? Some variant? Something very different? At this point, the evidence isn't enough to determine.

In the scenarios we have considered, the inflaton is produced by the decay of some other particle and does cause the expansion but instead causes an exponential expansion (so, a very, very fast expansion) until it, in turn, decays.

The overall expansion rate is determined by the balance between the mass/energy density and the current rate of expansion, but in the standard scenario, there has *always* been expansion: it is a feature of the geometry of our universe.

Since time itself began (again, in the standard model) at the same point as the expansion and also along with matter and energy, it is problematic to even talk about a 'before the expansion'.

Now, there are extensions of the standard model where time does exist prior to the current expansion, but there are several different such models and no evidence as yet to distinguish between them.

 

[Jumi]

Perhaps there is no real first cause. If there was, we'd have to go back to what caused the first cause...

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps there is no real first cause. If there was, we'd have to go back to what caused the first cause...

I've never figured out why people don't like infinite regression. There is no *logical* problem with it.

 

[HonestJoe]

So would that make cause and effect a manifestation of the universe?

Sure, it could be. Equally, cause and effect could apply on a wider scale, including whatever environment the universe was create in. Or cause and effect could be conditional on the basis of factors we’re not (yet) aware of. Or the whole thing could be an illusion. In this kind of context, literally anything is possible.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not exactly. One problem is that we don't know the specifics of the inflaton field. Is it the Higg's field? Some variant? Something very different? At this point, the evidence isn't enough to determine.

In the scenarios we have considered, the inflaton is produced by the decay of some other particle and does cause the expansion but instead causes an exponential expansion (so, a very, very fast expansion) until it, in turn, decays.

The overall expansion rate is determined by the balance between the mass/energy density and the current rate of expansion, but in the standard scenario, there has *always* been expansion: it is a feature of the geometry of our universe.

Since time itself began (again, in the standard model) at the same point as the expansion and also along with matter and energy, it is problematic to even talk about a 'before the expansion'.

Now, there are extensions of the standard model where time does exist prior to the current expansion, but there are several different such models and no evidence as yet to distinguish between them.

I understand, I think, the difficulty of language to describe "before."

Did cause as we know it only exist once the expansion was in effect?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Perhaps there is no real first cause. If there was, we'd have to go back to what caused the first cause...

Are you assuming that cause is an effect?

 

[Polymath257]

I understand, I think, the difficulty of language to describe "before."

Did cause as we know it only exist once the expansion was in effect?

As far as we understand right now. There are several possibilities on this and not enough data currently to determine which is correct. But it seems that cause and effect are aspects of our universe, so would not exist without the universe (I don't use the word 'before' here deliberately).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Not exactly. One problem is that we don't know the specifics of the inflaton field. Is it the Higg's field? Some variant? Something very different? At this point, the evidence isn't enough to determine.

In the scenarios we have considered, the inflaton is produced by the decay of some other particle and does cause the expansion but instead causes an exponential expansion (so, a very, very fast expansion) until it, in turn, decays.

The overall expansion rate is determined by the balance between the mass/energy density and the current rate of expansion, but in the standard scenario, there has *always* been expansion: it is a feature of the geometry of our universe.

Since time itself began (again, in the standard model) at the same point as the expansion and also along with matter and energy, it is problematic to even talk about a 'before the expansion'.

Now, there are extensions of the standard model where time does exist prior to the current expansion, but there are several different such models and no evidence as yet to distinguish between them.

Did the ability to describe the universe begin when the movement began?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

As far as we understand right now. There are several possibilities on this and not enough data currently to determine which is correct. But it seems that cause and effect are aspects of our universe, so would not exist without the universe (I don't use the word 'before' here deliberately).

One more question. Since cause wasn't around before cause it probably didn't cause the first cause (I have a challenge to see how many times I can fit cause into sentence. I don't know what causes this.).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Sure, it could be. Equally, cause and effect could apply on a wider scale, including whatever environment the universe was create in. Or cause and effect could be conditional on the basis of factors we’re not (yet) aware of. Or the whole thing could be an illusion. In this kind of context, literally anything is possible.

In an infinity of cause and effect would every cause be an effect?