How could first big-bang explode?

[YmirGF]

Nothing in the new linked article refutes big bang explosion YmirGF....but don't worry about it, it's only semantics...explode, expand, inflate.....who cares...the thing is, expansion took place and time space is in play....and in this time...stuff was moving away from other stuff....what is the cause of the expansion?

If your answer is, as it seems to be, that science doesn't know, just speculation......then it is no better than this....and God said, “Let there be inflation,” and there was inflation.

Maybe to you the big bang isn't about what caused it...to me and all sane people...one doesn't buy it unless the seller can explain it...

Okie dokie, Ben.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

What caused the expansion? Division by zero.

Sorry Ouroboros, on rereading your post...I now take it that you are seriously putting 1/0 forward as the cause of ongoing big bang expansion...

I am at a loss to understand how infinity is the cause...can you explain what the concepts of the one and the zero respectively represent in the context of big bang science theory?

 

[paarsurrey]

Indeed, that is what an explosion is, however that is not what the big bang was/is. The big bang is a misnomer, as the event was/is inflationary. Both time and space inflated therefore there was no explosion, as explosions take place in space. The unfortunately named "big bang" created time and space and has not stopped inflating since. If you are asking what the mechanics were behind this inflation, no one, to my knowledge can tell you that as we cannot observe the initial inflation or the singularity prior to inflation.

The bottom line is stop referring to it AS an explosion. It was not.

OK, explosion, expansion and now inflation. One may amend the OP.
Big-bang "created" time and space; I am at a loss as how an inanimate can create anything, while a G-d a Being, they say cannot create it.
They say there were many big-bangs; how could they conclude that the latest big-bang created time and space while earlier one's could not?

Regards

 

[Ouroboros]

Sorry Ouroboros, on rereading your post...I now take it that you are seriously putting 1/0 forward as the cause of ongoing big bang expansion...

I am at a loss to understand how infinity is the cause...can you explain what the concepts of the one and the zero respectively represent in the context of big bang science theory?

No. What I'm saying is that the question is nonsensical.

The answer to the cause of the big bang is: how many wheels does a cat have and the color of vanilla flavored squares.

There was zero causes. 1 cause. 5 causes. n causes. Infinite causes. Loop causes. Recursive causes. +/- panda bear causes. The number of corners in doughnut.

Causality only applies to after the "first cause" which makes the first cause a non-cause.

 

[Ouroboros]

OK, explosion, expansion and now inflation. One may amend the OP.

Inflation and expansion are considered the same in big bang theory. Inflation is the fancier word for expansion.

Big-bang "created" time and space; I am at a loss as how an inanimate can create anything, while a G-d a Being, they say cannot create it.

How can there be a being without time and space? Being is by definition something within spacetime, hence spacetime must exist before a God-being.

They say there were many big-bangs; how could they conclude that the latest big-bang created time and space while earlier one's could not?

Other spacetime vectors in an infinite n-dimensional world.

I'm sorry, but are we trying to understand and put human words on the things that we can't understand and are beyond our finite minds? Is God supposed to be easy to understand? Is the Loop Quantum Gravity something that we're supposed to be able to express in a sentence? No. That's not how neither one works. These things are beyond our ordinary language.

 

[YmirGF]

OK, explosion, expansion and now inflation. One may amend the OP.
Big-bang "created" time and space; I am at a loss as how an inanimate can create anything,

Don't feel too bad, Paarsurrey, this is a problem that the greatest minds in the world are wrestling with and have been for decades now. Is it essential that you know the precise mechanics involved and do you have the requisite understanding to appreciate the current scientific models?

while a G-d a Being, they say cannot create it.

I've certainly never said such a thing, presumably IF a god existed it could create whatever amused it. Have you run into people who say that God could not create anything? Or are they saying it because they believe said agent does not exist and THEREFORE cannot create anything. A slight difference.

They say there were many big-bangs; how could they conclude that the latest big-bang created time and space while earlier one's could not?

No, you are mixing theoretical models. The multiple big bang scenario occur in two models I am aware of. The first is the largely disregarded Big Bang/Big Crunch theory. In that scenario there are repeated Big Bangs following said Big Crunch. The thing is though, that time and space are created anew as the previous time/space universe is totally annihilated. Time stops and space no longer exists. In the second scenario, big bangs create different universes in a much larger multiverse. Theoretically each universe has its own timeline and own space, separate from other universes with their own unique time and space, therefore, if true, you cannot determine when the whole thing started from our standpoint. The current estimates about the age of the universe apply to our big bang that precipitate our space/time universe.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No. What I'm saying is that the question is nonsensical.

But there is the scientific method....a scientific theory has to be able to be falsified.....if you imply that though science knows the universe is expanding, the cause of it is unknown because real scientists consider it nonsense to enquire why.....then big bang theory is even nuttier than I thought...the theory can't be falsified wrt inflationary cause!

How can there be a space time effect (inflation), without a space time cause?

 

[Ouroboros]

But there is the scientific method....a scientific theory has to be able to be falsified.....if you imply that though science knows the universe is expanding, the cause of it is unknown because real scientists consider it nonsense to enquire why.....then big bang theory is even nuttier than I thought...the theory can't be falsified wrt inflationary cause!

How can there be a cause in something that can't have a causes?

The way we see, think, reason, argue, logically deduce causality is within a spacetime world. To try to think and reason how causality works in a non-spacetime world is essentially nonsensical until we can create a mathematical framework that can explain it.

For instance, loop quantum gravity is suggested as being independent of causality, and it's also proposed that LQG is the explanation to spacetime.

How can there be a space time effect (inflation), without a space time cause?

How can there be a cause without a cause?

If you at any point decide that there must exist some cause that in turn didn't have a cause, then which point is it? Is it quantum loops? Big Bang? Multiverse? Branes? God? Whichever you choose, it's just something that's beyond our understanding and it's this uncaused case that is a non-cause and a non-thing but still a some-thing... You can call it what you like. I call it both nature and God. It's all one thing, but that's just my choice of doing so. It doesn't undo that at some point the underlying nature of reality (being natural in itself) and God essentially are the same.

Essentially, we can call the quantum loops God, or we can capitalize the word Multiverse to signify it's "divine" essence of creating force. It doesn't matter to the theory of Big Bang. Perhaps the void of "no-thing" is God. Or perhaps the future Omega God is what really pulls life, organization, and consciousness forward? Or perhaps time and space is ultimately looped in on itself, infinitely, eternally, recursively without exit condition.

 

[Bunyip]

Because if there is an expansion, scientifically speaking, there is a cause...what that cause is, is what science is meant to establish.

The word 'science' is from the Latin 'scientia' meaning knowledge...it's about knowing why the expansion....unless the cause can be known...there is no knowledge...no 'science'....

No Ben. Science does not say that there must be a cause. YOU are making that claim Ben. How you imagine that unless science can answer your question, there is no science one can only guess.

 

[Bunyip]

And I'll second that motion.

You and Ben just need to brush up on some basic science knowledge. No need to take it personally.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

How can there be a cause in something that can't have a causes?

The way we see, think, reason, argue, logically deduce causality is within a spacetime world. To try to think and reason how causality works in a non-spacetime world is essentially nonsensical until we can create a mathematical framework that can explain it.

For instance, loop quantum gravity is suggested as being independent of causality, and it's also proposed that LQG is the explanation to spacetime.


How can there be a cause without a cause?

If you at any point decide that there must exist some cause that in turn didn't have a cause, then which point is it? Is it quantum loops? Big Bang? Multiverse? Branes? God? Whichever you choose, it's just something that's beyond our understanding and it's this uncaused case that is a non-cause and a non-thing but still a some-thing... You can call it what you like. I call it both nature and God. It's all one thing, but that's just my choice of doing so. It doesn't undo that at some point the underlying nature of reality (being natural in itself) and God essentially are the same.

Essentially, we can call the quantum loops God, or we can capitalize the word Multiverse to signify it's "divine" essence of creating force. It doesn't matter to the theory of Big Bang. Perhaps the void of "no-thing" is God. Or perhaps the future Omega God is what really pulls life, organization, and consciousness forward? Or perhaps time and space is ultimately looped in on itself, infinitely, eternally, recursively without exit condition.

Ok....the galaxies are moving away from each other in space time (Hubble Red Shift)...so this is a space time event happening that can be measured per my understanding.....I ask myself what could be the energy forcing these masses apart?...and you say to me... the moving apart of the galaxies is not an effect due to any energy or power, it is due to the causeless nature underlying the galaxies moving apart.....there are no cause and effects going on in the space time of the big bang science..

Do I have that right?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No Ben. Science does not say that there must be a cause. YOU are making that claim Ben. How you imagine that unless science can answer your question, there is no science one can only guess.

Show me the science that says this?

 

[ShivaFan]

In regards to the "big bang" theory, as part of my daughter's orientation to U.C.Berkeley, I had the opportunity to sit in on a lecture (it was packed, by the way) by a professor who is part of a project exploring such subject matter.

I am sorry, his name escapes me, he was definetly either Eastern European, Russian or such, not that it matters.

I make no claim that I understood his lecture, however there was one point which I made no mistake in understanding what he was saying and which was a theme of his theory, which is a developing conclusion not yet proven but evidential....

And that is, the origin of the universe was not the result of a big bang.

A vacuum is what caused, is causing, and will continue to cause, and may have always caused, an outward expansion of universes with gaps here and there and moves in directions based on two opposite "hot spots" with two counter opposite "cold spots" of which the cold spots "draw" the expansion in that direction between the "hot spots" like a highway but the highway is not a straight line but "circular".

I do not know the nature of this vacuum(s) but he wasn't talking about vacuum cleaners.

He also said it seems the universes "have no outward boundary" and goes on "boundless". No one will ever reach the outer edge of the "universe"(s), period, and that it was not a big bang.

Take that as you will, you can go anywhere with it, it doesn't mean his "perspective" is correct, but all I have to say is after hearing him, even though I make no claim of undedstanding his powerpoints, charts, math, et all .... I do not think it was a big bang.

 

[Bunyip]

Show me the science that says this?

No Ben, YOU need to explain why there must be a cause. Science is not making that claim YOU are Ben.

All I have seen from are very rude and insulting comments, but no evidence, reason or even an attempt from you to make sense.

 

[The Enlightened One]

Anybody read Flatland? What if came from "inside"

 

[Ouroboros]

Ok....the galaxies are moving away from each other in space time (Hubble Red Shift)...so this is a space time event happening that can be measured per my understanding.....I ask myself what could be the energy forcing these masses apart?...and you say to me... the moving apart of the galaxies is not an effect due to any energy or power, it is due to the causeless nature underlying the galaxies moving apart.....there are no cause and effects going on in the space time of the big bang science..

Do I have that right?

Why is it just One cause and not many or continuous? Why is the increasing speed of the universe expansion only explained by one single first cause before the universe existed?

Secondly, are we talking now about my personal views or the Big Bang theory? My personal views are different than the big bang theory, but this thread was mostly about the questions about the big bang theory... wasn't it?

My view is that I suspect that big bang didn't happen at all. We're always been in a "bang" that never began and never ended. And what's causing it? Dark energy, in my opinion. Well, that's the scientists explanation to the acceleration, so I'm not really alone about it. And where does this dark energy come from? From an infinite supply.

Oh, and by the way, the acceleration not the expansion is a bit difficult to explain in the big bang theory, at least in the previous versions of it. It's gone through several revisions because of new discoveries. My belief is that it will be changed even more in the future.

Now, it's your turn to answer a cause-effect question. A man has yellow teeth. We know the "cause" is that he's smoking. Now, exactly which time of all his smoking sessions did his teeth turn yellow? Before, on, or after the 485th time?

 

[Ouroboros]

Anybody read Flatland? What if came from "inside"

Flatland is great. Should be required reading before even discussing spacetime topics.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Why is it just One cause and not many or continuous? Why is the increasing speed of the universe expansion only explained by one single first cause before the universe existed?

Secondly, are we talking now about my personal views or the Big Bang theory? My personal views are different than the big bang theory, but this thread was mostly about the questions about the big bang theory... wasn't it?

My view is that I suspect that big bang didn't happen at all. We're always been in a "bang" that never began and never ended. And what's causing it? Dark energy, in my opinion. Well, that's the scientists explanation to the acceleration, so I'm not really alone about it. And where does this dark energy come from? From an infinite supply.

Oh, and by the way, the acceleration not the expansion is a bit difficult to explain in the big bang theory, at least in the previous versions of it. It's gone through several revisions because of new discoveries. My belief is that it will be changed even more in the future.

Now, it's your turn to answer a cause-effect question. A man has yellow teeth. We know the "cause" is that he's smoking. Now, exactly which time of all his smoking sessions did his teeth turn yellow? Before, on, or after the 485th time?

But you are now admitting that there is a cause after all.. What have I said that has made you change your mind?

Ok, I presume it is because you have not been coming from a scientific pov, but just your personal....that's ok...but your personal view was wrong....there was and is a cause of inflation involving energy. Remember that the theory has it that in mere seconds after the appearance of the singularity,,,the space time temperature was 15 billion degrees...of course this will cause expansion!

I have no idea what the your point of the smoking yellow teeth question was meant to prove....but it does prove mine.. I have been trying to get you to understand the principle of cause and effect....you were in denial and saying there was no cause behind the effect of universal expansion....cause and effect...smoking and yellow teeth!

 

[Deathbydefault]

I'm a hardcore science nerd so I could go all week explaining this but.... Big Bang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia pretty much explains my point with a little less information than I would like to give you.

If I remember wiki will basically tell you there was a balance of sub-atomic thingies that eventually unbalanced and then pretty much boom.

That has to be the simplest, mind and overall, explanation I have ever given for anything....

Anyways, there is a great amount of scientific study on this and it's a very widely accepted theory just as gravity (dark matter) is.
Of course there is no way to prove this but there is also no way to prove the biological evolution of man either and 99% of scientist accept that as almost fact.
Just go through all the evidence there is for these various theories and realize that most of them only have that 1% gap with 99% proof.
Religion is the exact opposite in my opinion. They have a book or something as their 1% and the gap is 99%.
Half assed explanations don't sit well with me so I choose science. If you of the religious nature would also like to study my side you would choose science too.
Assuming you understood...

 

[Ouroboros]

But you are now admitting that there is a cause after all.. What have I said that has made you change your mind?

"A" cause is singular. Any cause, many causes, are not.

Infinite energy, sure, let's call that "The First and Only One Cause." Even though that's wrong.

Ok, I presume it is because you have not been coming from a scientific pov, but just your personal....that's ok...but your personal view was wrong....there was and is a cause of inflation involving energy. Remember that the theory has it that in mere seconds after the appearance of the singularity,,,the space time temperature was 15 billion degrees...of course this will cause expansion!

I didn't know that the temperature caused the expansion. That's news to me. My understanding is that spacetime expanded, inflated is another term, regardless of the temperature, etc. But I could be wrong.

The problem here is the constant look for "A" cause, in singular, one single cause, the one and only. There's not a single cause. There can be many causes. There could also be that none of them are the cause.

If the cause was Quantum Loops, then what caused the quantum loops? Nothing. They're kind'a self-causing. If I understand it right.

I have no idea what the your point of the smoking yellow teeth question was meant to prove....but it does prove mine.. I have been trying to get you to understand the principle of cause and effect....you were in denial and saying there was no cause behind the effect of universal expansion....cause and effect...smoking and yellow teeth!

You obviously missed the point about problem of fixating on a discontinuous cause for a continuous causation. Oh, well. I think I tried my best at least.

Besides, I was originally trying to explain what I think the Big Bang theory says about these things (no cause, expanding into nothing, etc), but you insisted on that I start to give my personal views (what is causing the universe to expand right now, which big bang theory doesn't explain well enough).

After all this, what was it that you were trying to achieve? What caused you to insist on this line of discussion?