What was the Big Bang

[ThePainefulTruth]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

 

[PureX]

I like the way you think. I don't understand it at all, but I like that there is someone out there contemplating this stuff. Shine on you crazy diamond!

 

[WalterTrull]

The problem, as I see it, is that we can't quite get our heads around the concept of time. If time is the structure of mind, then the Big Bang is now. It refers to the initial premise upon which everything is based. Since I am an adherent of a mental universe, I prefer "in the beginning is the word". Pretty much the same statement to me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

"Cause" in the way that you use the word appears to be misapplied. "Cause" does not happen at the quantum level. At the quantum level there are only probability curves. "Cause" is something that occurs on a large scale when all of those curves are added together.

 

[Nous]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

This is "unorthodox" language, but I think it's really somewhat helpful to use unorthodox language (and then to be free enough to use different unorthodox language when the old unorthodox language becomes orthodox), because the whole subject matter is so . . . mind-bending.

 

[Skwim]

"Cause" in the way that you use the word appears to be misapplied. "Cause" does not happen at the quantum level. At the quantum level there are only probability curves. "Cause" is something that occurs on a large scale when all of those curves are added together.

Cause does appear to happen at the quantum level, it's just that we have trouble identifying it.

"Confusion of causality and determinism is particularly acute in quantum mechanics, this theory being acausal in the sense that it is unable in many cases to identify the causes of actually observed effects or to predict the effects of identical causes, but arguably deterministic in some interpretations (e.g. if the wave function is presumed not to actually collapse as in the many-worlds interpretation, or if its collapse is due to hidden variables, or simply redefining determinism as meaning that probabilities rather than specific effects are determined).

In the theory of general relativity, the concept of causality is generalized in the most straightforward way: the effect must belong to the future light cone of its cause, even if the spacetime is curved. New subtleties must be taken into account when we investigate causality in quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory in particular. In quantum field theory, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. However, the principle of locality is disputed: whether it strictly holds depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics chosen, especially for experiments involving quantum entanglement that satisfy Bell's Theorem."
Source:Wikipedia



"What we experience as cause and effect in our everyday world may work in a profoundly different way in the subatomic realm of quantum mechanics, according to new work published by researchers at Perimeter Institute and the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo.

This finding builds on research the team published in 2015, which demonstrated that certain kinds of correlations in the quantum world actually do imply causation.

There are different kinds of causal mechanisms. You can think of it like the difference between flipping a coin to decide whether to have root beer or ice cream, and deciding to mix both for a float. Causal mechanisms can be mixed probabilistically, meaning that one act or another happens (you either have the root beer or the ice cream); or causal mechanisms can be mixed physically, so that both happen simultaneously (hello root beer float!).

The research team. . . . found a new kind of physical mixture of causal mechanisms, in which the mechanisms act quantum-coherently with one another.

The work builds on research published in Nature Physics in 2015 that showed that certain kinds of quantum correlations do imply causation – even without the kind of active intervention that classical variables require.

Causality is a fundamental concept for those studying epidemiology, genetics and social sciences and the idea of disentangling correlations for causation is very important. “We’ve discovered that the causal structures that are allowed in the quantum world are much richer than in the classical world,” said MacLean, a PhD student with IQC and the Department of Physics and Astronomy. “We don’t know this yet, but there are certain things that it could entail for other fields.”
source
​

And in concluding an article titled "Viewpoint: Causality in the Quantum World" the author, Jacques Pienaar, said;

"Several research groups, including mine, are still exploring a range of alternative quantum causal theories. But the new model by Allen and colleagues is the first to meet all requirements of a quantum causal model, providing a uniquely quantum definition of causality. Thanks to results like this, we may find that quantum mechanics has a causal interpretation, just like classical mechanics. We might also reveal the mechanisms that are behind observed correlations and pinpoint the interventions that manipulate such mechanisms. In a few words, this would amount to bringing back some cause-effect “intuition” into the spooky and bizarre world of quantum mechanics."
source





.​

 

[`mud]

And of course, no causality !
Just pure inertia.
And then mass.
What contained the container that everything expanded into ?
Maybe it didn't do it that way ?
Ahhhhhh....the condensing Cosmos is still expanding,
it will never be a vapor again !

 

[Subduction Zone]

Cause does appear to happen at the quantum level, it's just that we have trouble identifying it.

"Confusion of causality and determinism is particularly acute in quantum mechanics, this theory being acausal in the sense that it is unable in many cases to identify the causes of actually observed effects or to predict the effects of identical causes, but arguably deterministic in some interpretations (e.g. if the wave function is presumed not to actually collapse as in the many-worlds interpretation, or if its collapse is due to hidden variables, or simply redefining determinism as meaning that probabilities rather than specific effects are determined).

In the theory of general relativity, the concept of causality is generalized in the most straightforward way: the effect must belong to the future light cone of its cause, even if the spacetime is curved. New subtleties must be taken into account when we investigate causality in quantum mechanics and relativistic quantum field theory in particular. In quantum field theory, causality is closely related to the principle of locality. However, the principle of locality is disputed: whether it strictly holds depends on the interpretation of quantum mechanics chosen, especially for experiments involving quantum entanglement that satisfy Bell's Theorem."
Source:Wikipedia



"What we experience as cause and effect in our everyday world may work in a profoundly different way in the subatomic realm of quantum mechanics, according to new work published by researchers at Perimeter Institute and the Institute for Quantum Computing (IQC) at the University of Waterloo.

This finding builds on research the team published in 2015, which demonstrated that certain kinds of correlations in the quantum world actually do imply causation.

There are different kinds of causal mechanisms. You can think of it like the difference between flipping a coin to decide whether to have root beer or ice cream, and deciding to mix both for a float. Causal mechanisms can be mixed probabilistically, meaning that one act or another happens (you either have the root beer or the ice cream); or causal mechanisms can be mixed physically, so that both happen simultaneously (hello root beer float!).

The research team. . . . found a new kind of physical mixture of causal mechanisms, in which the mechanisms act quantum-coherently with one another.

The work builds on research published in Nature Physics in 2015 that showed that certain kinds of quantum correlations do imply causation – even without the kind of active intervention that classical variables require.

Causality is a fundamental concept for those studying epidemiology, genetics and social sciences and the idea of disentangling correlations for causation is very important. “We’ve discovered that the causal structures that are allowed in the quantum world are much richer than in the classical world,” said MacLean, a PhD student with IQC and the Department of Physics and Astronomy. “We don’t know this yet, but there are certain things that it could entail for other fields.”
source
​

And in concluding an article titled "Viewpoint: Causality in the Quantum World" the author, Jacques Pienaar, said;

"Several research groups, including mine, are still exploring a range of alternative quantum causal theories. But the new model by Allen and colleagues is the first to meet all requirements of a quantum causal model, providing a uniquely quantum definition of causality. Thanks to results like this, we may find that quantum mechanics has a causal interpretation, just like classical mechanics. We might also reveal the mechanisms that are behind observed correlations and pinpoint the interventions that manipulate such mechanisms. In a few words, this would amount to bringing back some cause-effect “intuition” into the spooky and bizarre world of quantum mechanics."
source





.​

Yes, but not in the sense that the OP was using the word. As your quotes demonstrate it is a different sort of causuality than in everyday determinism. That is why I used scare quotes to tried to make my meaning clear.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

I like the way you think. I don't understand it at all, but I like that there is someone out there contemplating this stuff. Shine on you crazy diamond!

TY, that's a very nice complement. But the beauty of it all is how simple it is. I just watched a movie yesterday called The Spinning Man. Guy Pearce is a philosophy professor. In it he's explaining to the class about Xeno's Paradox, which the class doesn't get. But he apparently doesn't know about the science, discovered 100 years ago, that resolves the paradox and makes everything fall into place, intuitively. But until you get to that point, it's all incomprehensible.

Then there's another movie, Her, which has Joaquin Phoenix's AI lover going off with other AIs to where he can't follow her...yet. AIs, being quantum entities, could be following other quantum paths through the Planck space-time gaps in the universe into Quantumland beyond. She says she wants him to come if he can and find her at some point (when he dies?)--which suggests the idea that our consciousnesses could be a quantum entities and well. You can fill in the blanks from there. I have no idea whether Spike Jonze, the director/writer, intended any of this, but it fits.

If our souls are indeed quantum entities, it's probably the one mystery that we'll never be able to solve. But you can see why I put this in the science and religion forum.

?See you in Quantumland...one day?

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

The problem, as I see it, is that we can't quite get our heads around the concept of time. If time is the structure of mind, then the Big Bang is now. It refers to the initial premise upon which everything is based. Since I am an adherent of a mental universe, I prefer "in the beginning is the word". Pretty much the same statement to me.

Time per se isn't so much of a mental construct problem, we can even absorb the idea of forever. But it's the concept of "always was" that leaves us totally blank, like dividing by zero. It's the same thing as scientists thinking of quantum transactions taking place both forward and backward in time. It just doesn't compute. But it becomes understandable, after a fashion, when we think of Quantumland as being timeless. We understand that all photons could be the same photon in a timeless environment.

And BTW, within the universe, the Big Bang was 13.8 million YA. But in Quantumland, it was/is now. Actually, there is no "now" there, or for that matter, not even a "there", there. It's not a mental construct, but it may well be a spiritual/natural combination, and/or a supernatural entity.
See.

 

[ChristineM]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

One idea
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
I know of another 27 equally plausible theories of how the universe could have been created.

 

[ChristineM]

There's no evidence for what caused the Big Bang, which appears to be a perfect fire wall against information leaking from whatever existed "before". But I think it's obvious what happened. What existed, and apparently still does, is a non-local Quantumland--that is, a timeless and "distanceless" ether into which the universe, at the Big Bang, started expanding into. The difference between Quantumland and the Universe, is that at a given dimensionless point in Quantumland, it was made (or happened) to become something that was composed of three dimensions of distance and one of time that weren't infinitely divisible. Said another way, there became a limit to the divisibility of the ether/Quantumland which converted it, via the Big Bang, to the Cosmos or universe we all know and love. Those limits, which are specific, are known as Planck-space and Planck-time, and they resolved the 2500 year-old Xeno's Paradox (which see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes).

So, our universe is undergoing an accelerating expansion into/within this Quantumland/ether. Thus we can say we know what preceded the universe. And we can theorize that quantum transactions take place in the "external" Quantumland which would explain Einstein's "spooky action at a distance" and other quantum weirdness.

But the ultimate question still remains, what caused that initiation, that first instance of space-time as the result of the first limit to the divisibility of the ether from which it sprang--which is also known as the Planck Epoch? That ether, that Quantumland, is still there and accessible to quantum entities "through" the infinitesimal Planck space-time "gaps" in the fabric of our universe.

As for cause, causality as we understand it did not coalesce until after the bb event so as far as the event itself is concerned causality is meaningless

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"Cause" in the way that you use the word appears to be misapplied. "Cause" does not happen at the quantum level. At the quantum level there are only probability curves. "Cause" is something that occurs on a large scale when all of those curves are added together.

I think you avoid the idea of a cause because of the implications, and the fact that you're an atheist. I admit, it's a weakness in the language and we can't know whether it was caused, designed or just happened. But I'm not going to use that cumbersome phrase all the time. And if you're going to say you know that it wasn't caused, that's being equally dogmatic as the theists who say that it was.

And what does cause have to do with a large scale. The universe was one Planck-length (1.6 x 10 to the-35 meters) across when it first appeared at the Big Bang. How small is that? Take this dot >.<, expand it to the size of the universe, and it would be this big >.< there.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

One idea
[1404.1207] Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
I know of another 27 equally plausible theories of how the universe could have been created.

27 non-spontaneous initiations? Do you have the list, or at least a couple of examples?

As for cause, causality as we understand it did not coalesce until after the bb event so as far as the event itself is concerned causality is meaningless

Do we understand it...the cause? And that the universe coalesced later is irrelevant. The raw material and natural law was there at the start.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And in concluding an article titled "Viewpoint: Causality in the Quantum World" the author, Jacques Pienaar, said;

"Several research groups, including mine, are still exploring a range of alternative quantum causal theories. But the new model by Allen and colleagues is the first to meet all requirements of a quantum causal model, providing a uniquely quantum definition of causality. Thanks to results like this, we may find that quantum mechanics has a causal interpretation, just like classical mechanics. We might also reveal the mechanisms that are behind observed correlations and pinpoint the interventions that manipulate such mechanisms. In a few words, this would amount to bringing back some cause-effect “intuition” into the spooky and bizarre world of quantum mechanics."​

Stephen Hawking thought he'd nailed from before the Big Bang which proved that God was not the cause, but that turned out to be what should have been a tremendous embarrassment, if he'd had any shame.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think you avoid the idea of a cause because of the implications, and the fact that you're an atheist. I admit, it's a weakness in the language and we can't know whether it was caused, designed or just happened. But I'm not going to use that cumbersome phrase all the time. And if you're going to say you know that it wasn't caused, that's being equally dogmatic as the theists who say that it was.

And what does cause have to do with a large scale. The universe was one Planck-length (1.6 x 10 to the-35 meters) across when it first appeared at the Big Bang. How small is that? Take this dot >.<, expand it to the size of the universe, and it would be this big >.< there.

It has nothing to do with being an atheist. There is no evidence for some outside "cause" nor does there appear to be any. And no, I am not going to claim that I know something that is unknown. It is the theists that usually claim "there had to be a cause". All I can say is that there is no evidence for such a need at this time. Perhaps in the future a need will be found. Or it will be found that there was no cause and that theists were grasping at straws.

Perhaps you need to learn what atheism is. You seem to have a somewhat skewed concept of it.

And we do not know about the size of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. It could still have been infinitely large. It has merely expanded since then. The entire universe as a singularity at that time. That means that it was compacted so much that both relativity and quantum dynamics as we now know them failed. That is why this concept is still being researched.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

And of course, no causality !

Are you ever serious?

Just pure inertia.
And then mass.

Well, pure energy, and then energy and mass. E=mc2 what.

What contained the container that everything expanded into ?

The universe initiated and is expanding "into" distanceless and timeless ether or Quantumland.

Maybe it didn't do it that way ?

Maybe what didn't do what what way?

Ahhhhhh....the condensing Cosmos is still expanding,
it will never be a vapor again !

If we ever figure out gravity, dark matter, dark energy, expansion accelerating beyond the speed of light--to what limit if any, black hole gravity wells, the appearance of matter out of nowhere, and Quantumland only knows what else, only then might we be able to say never again

 

[`mud]

"...distanceless and timeless..."
So that's the `void` ! I didn't know that !

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

It has nothing to do with being an atheist. There is no evidence for some outside "cause" nor does there appear to be any.

On what basis do you presume that there is no outside cause when there's no evidence for anything, much less causation or the lack of it, prior to the Big Bang. The Big Bang is essentially an impenetrable fire wall for information, at least to this point, with no inkling from beyond.

And no, I am not going to claim that I know something that is unknown. It is the theists that usually claim "there had to be a cause". All I can say is that there is no evidence for such a need at this time. Perhaps in the future a need will be found. Or it will be found that there was no cause and that theists were grasping at straws.

Exactly, we know nothing at all ante-Big Bang, which includes any theory of how it was initiated.

Perhaps you need to learn what atheism is. You seem to have a somewhat skewed concept of it.

I consider agnostic-atheism and agnostic-deism to be the only two reasonable positions on God. But the atheists have a point that we can't prove a negative. But the issue is the evidence at hand, i.e. the universe, and the evidence for it's initiation is absolutely zero for or against a spontaneous initiation or a consciously (God for short) caused initiation. My only beef with atheists is against the ones that claim certainty, the same as it is with theists who claim certainty, being as they are standing on thin air to boot.

And we do not know about the size of the universe at the time of the Big Bang. It could still have been infinitely large. It has merely expanded since then. The entire universe as a singularity at that time. That means that it was compacted so much that both relativity and quantum dynamics as we now know them failed. That is why this concept is still being researched.

Re: the Planck Epoch, which is only argued against by those who disagree with the Big Bang. The singularity is an imaginary point from prior to the first instance the universe existed. In between there was nothing, because it, the Planck Epoch, was the introduction of the limit to divisibility of whatever preceded it, call it the Ether. How can you not call the Planck Epoch infinitesimally small. But even if it was large, I don't see the relevance in the first place.

BTW, the universe could not have been infinitely large, and expanded since then--by definition.

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

"...distanceless and timeless..."
So that's the `void` ! I didn't know that !

Ether, void, whatever. You heard it here first, though I can't claim it.