[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Does a factual Big Bang violate causality?

Can we avoid the highly speculative multiverse "almost theory"?

This is a strictly scientific question on my behalf!

Alan.

[jerrygg38]

Ultimately we are left with a situation where something had to exist before big bang. Believers tend to attribute the universe to a creator of some infinite power and ability. Then how did the creator come into being? Alternately we have some form of energy which transformed into the big bang. The multi-verse is one solution. Another is a physical matter/energy into dark matter/energy oscillation. this is a simple solution. But how did the oscillator come into existence? So we are always forced to having a first cause. somehow the first cause always existed. Ultimately it appears to me that existence is a circle rather than a starting point. So the present universe is merely a particular configuration of an infinite series of possibilities. Then it is really impossible to answer how the first cause came into being because an infinite number of prior universes have occurred and an infinite number of future universes will always occur. Thus no definite answer can ever be found as to the ultimate first cause.
   

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Ultimately we are left with a situation where something had to exist before big bang. Believers tend to attribute the universe to a creator of some infinite power and ability. Then how did the creator come into being? Alternately we have some form of energy which transformed into the big bang. The multi-verse is one solution. Another is a physical matter/energy into dark matter/energy oscillation. this is a simple solution. But how did the oscillator come into existence? So we are always forced to having a first cause. somehow the first cause always existed. Ultimately it appears to me that existence is a circle rather than a starting point. So the present universe is merely a particular configuration of an infinite series of possibilities. Then it is really impossible to answer how the first cause came into being because an infinite number of prior universes have occurred and an infinite number of future universes will always occur. Thus no definite answer can ever be found as to the ultimate first cause.
   

Logic tells me by infinite regression we must arrive at an "Un-caused-Cause" of all existence? An eternal repeating cycle simply does not answer the question!

[chiralSPO]

WARNING: this may contain bits that question accepted theory. Please read with a critical but open mind.

A lot of physics is based on mathematics. And significant percentage of the functions that are most applicable to physics have a great deal of trouble when it comes to 0.

As far as location in space (3 of the dimensions of spacetime) goes, it is ok to define a coordinate system with an arbitrary origin "0 point" to make the calculations easier. There is no absolute 0 of location (it is relative!). But there is a problem with zero when it comes to the distance between two points! Whether it's calculating the electrostatic interaction between two charged point particles in the same place or their gravitational interaction, singularities often arise.

Is time like space, in that the origin is naturally undefined, and can be arbitrarily set? On very short time scales, we model it as such. It is essentially routine to define the 0 point in a timecourse experiment (and it's not several billion years ago). However, when discussing cosmology, the big bang has become the 0 point on an absolute scale of time. Like with spacial points, events that have 0 duration are also tricky to deal with using the common functions.

So, either there was no time before the big bang, and it is actually a 0 on an absolute scale, or there was time before, and we just cannot observe before the big bang. Sometimes I wonder if it would make more sense to look at the logarithm of time as the temporal dimension (what we call time is really e^{"True Time"}), or maybe reciprocal time (time = 1/"True Time"), if causality depends on one of these versions of time, then there is no 0 point, no boundary along the trajectory of that asymptote, even if it never crosses what we call zero, the line never ends. Every cause has an effect and every effect has a cause, and there is no first cause because every cause has its cause. (imagine a chicken vs egg game that is modeled by the function: "egg" if sin(1/t)>0 ; "chicken" if sin(1/t)≥0. Is it "chicken" or "egg" at t=0?)

It is interesting that time might have an "edge" that defines it as an absolute scale on very large scales, but we continue to model time as arbitrary on very short timescales. Should we also wonder the same applies to space? And if we can treat time as essentially linear over the course of 1 second, or 20 minutes or even a few years, but need to account for some curve when we look at it over 15 billion years, perhaps we should also wonder if space can be treated over 1 lightsecond, 20 lightminutes and even a few light years, but when considering spans of 15 few billion lightyears, there might need to be some higher order curve that is considered, or even an "edge"

[Blame]

The big bang starts with universe as a point source. How can you determine the ancestry of a dot? 

Then again our universe might share dimensions with others but non we can access. I can't imagine an interaction between universes that doesn't effect then as a whole. 

Bottom line is that we can make theories or ask our favorite gods but evidence is going to be thin.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

The big bang starts with universe as a point source. How can you determine the ancestry of a dot? 

Then again our universe might share dimensions with others but non we can access. I can't imagine an interaction between universes that doesn't effect then as a whole. 

Bottom line is that we can make theories or ask our favorite gods but evidence is going to be thin.

The Big Bang did not emerge out from a "Dot" but rather from a dimensionless singularity, that had no form or an absolute null state zero if you like.

[Blame]

The Big Bang did not emerge out from a "Dot" but rather from a dimensionless singularity, that had no form or an absolute null state zero if you like.

Evidence?

The big bang theory runs the universe back to a point source but can't confirm that that point source had no dimensions. It might well have had one of time and any number of others of no more than quantum length. It's a bit difficult to confirm it as a null ether. When it banged it had all that energy. Could be it already had all that energy as potential before some idiot lit the blue touch paper. Frankly apart from insisting on the bang and linking that bang to some fairly decent evidence the theory is open to debate.

Using carefully precise terms for what we have no real understanding of might sound scientific but, to me, has all the integrity of adding extra significant digits to the back of an approximation. Personally I am going to stick with "point source" and "dot" but you are welcome to use whatever makes you comfortable.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

The Big Bang did not emerge out from a "Dot" but rather from a dimensionless singularity, that had no form or an absolute null state zero if you like.

Evidence?

The big bang theory runs the universe back to a point source but can't confirm that that point source had no dimensions. It might well have had one of time and any number of others of no more than quantum length. It's a bit difficult to confirm it as a null ether. When it banged it had all that energy. Could be it already had all that energy as potential before some idiot lit the blue touch paper. Frankly apart from insisting on the bang and linking that bang to some fairly decent evidence the theory is open to debate.

Using carefully precise terms for what we have no real understanding of might sound scientific but, to me, has all the integrity of adding extra significant digits to the back of an approximation. Personally I am going to stick with "point source" and "dot" but you are welcome to use whatever makes you comfortable.

Give me "Evidence that you exist"? of course there is no evidence,    the big bang is a "Theory" but the best theory we have right now!

[Blame]

Give me "Evidence that you exist"? of course there is no evidence,    the big bang is a "Theory" but the best theory we have right now!

Evidence that I exist? Well, this reply is good.

Evidence for the big bang? Decent enough. The Hubble red shift being the best of it.

Evidence that the big bang started with a " dimensionless singularity"?  I am all ears.

Strikes me that you are confusing "evidence" with "proof".

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Give me "Evidence that you exist"? of course there is no evidence,    the big bang is a "Theory" but the best theory we have right now!

Evidence that I exist? Well, this reply is good.

Evidence for the big bang? Decent enough. The Hubble red shift being the best of it.

Evidence that the big bang started with a " dimensionless singularity"?  I am all ears. (Like you said and contradicted yourself namely the Hubble Red Shift of the visual light spectrum! eyes not ears! silly )

Strikes me that you are confusing "evidence" with "proof".

In the simplest terms, proof is conclusive, usually mathematically but evidence isn't. Evidence is more of a suggestion.

[jeffreyH]

This is actually a very good question and well thought out. Take a black hole for instance. We have a radiation that is expected to last for the lifetime of the universe before most black holes evaporate. Not a very spectacular bang. So if the big bang started from anything resembling a black hole then nothing has actually left the event horizon yet and the heat death hypothesis is simply the final sequence of the black hole evaporation. Our universe runs out of steam because of Hawking radiation external to its event horizon. The other alternative is that we are the result of matter tunelling through Kruskal geometry and into a white hole. All very speculative but based on mainstream physics.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kruskal%E2%80%93Szekeres_coordinates

[Blame]

Alan McDougall

Ok. So how about this as a suggestion?

Come up with evidence that there is consensus for your "a dimensionless singularity, that had no form or an absolute null state zero if you like." Failing that defend it as best you can as the only option worth considering.

I doubt you can. Ether the singularity already contained all the energy needed to explode, so it wasn't in a null state or the energy must have come from elsewhere so it must have existed in sufficient dimensions for there to have been an elsewhere. I am not saying that its existence, or dimensions were any longer than quantum physics demands but surely the consensus favors quantum physics.

[Alan McDougall (OP)]

Alan McDougall

Ok. So how about this as a suggestion?

Come up with evidence that there is consensus for your "a dimensionless singularity, that had no form or an absolute null state zero if you like." Failing that defend it as best you can as the only option worth considering.

I doubt you can. Ether the singularity already contained all the energy needed to explode, so it wasn't in a null state or the energy must have come from elsewhere so it must have existed in sufficient dimensions for there to have been an elsewhere. I am not saying that its existence, or dimensions were any longer than quantum physics demands but surely the consensus favors quantum physics.

The Big Bang  wording is wrong, there was no explosion, but a sudden emergence out of the primordial singularity leading to the creation of the universe. There was no separation between the quantum world and the larger yet to be macro world within the singularity, both did not exist in any shape form or matter.

To really know what happened at the very beginning of our universe,  one would need to go back in time to the very beginning within the primordial Plank time constant where reality as we know it could take on its first forms of concrete existence.

[jerrygg38]

Ultimately we are left with a situation where something had to exist before big bang. Believers tend to attribute the universe to a creator of some infinite power and ability. Then how did the creator come into being? Alternately we have some form of energy which transformed into the big bang. The multi-verse is one solution. Another is a physical matter/energy into dark matter/energy oscillation. this is a simple solution. But how did the oscillator come into existence? So we are always forced to having a first cause. somehow the first cause always existed. Ultimately it appears to me that existence is a circle rather than a starting point. So the present universe is merely a particular configuration of an infinite series of possibilities. Then it is really impossible to answer how the first cause came into being because an infinite number of prior universes have occurred and an infinite number of future universes will always occur. Thus no definite answer can ever be found as to the ultimate first cause.
   

Logic tells me by infinite regression we must arrive at an "Un-caused-Cause" of all existence? An eternal repeating cycle simply does not answer the question!

  By our normal cause and effect logic what you way is true. The last big bang was caused by energy flowing into a circle. The question of how the circle of energy came to be would agree with your answer if cause and effect was always true. One question would be what is the probability of the universe existing and what is the probability of the universe not existing? We then end up with infinite possibilities and you would ask how the infinite possibilities came to be. Thus there must be some higher form of logic and reason which our brains find difficult to comprehend. In the end it could be argued that raw unintelligent energy always existed and the circle was produced by this. And since raw unintelligent energy if full of chaos, we came from chaos and no one can tell how chaos came to be. Yet in my opinion, once the chaos formed a circle, the circle continued forever. so how many cycles have we gone through? Perhaps billions of billions. And how many more cycles will we encounter? Perhaps billions of billions. thus the question of how we came to be is an eternal question with no answer. Yet we can answer or will answer how the present cycle came to be. It came from the previous cycle.

[jerrygg38]

Using carefully precise terms for what we have no real understanding of might sound scientific but, to me, has all the integrity of adding extra significant digits to the back of an approximation. Personally I am going to stick with "point source" and "dot" but you are welcome to use whatever makes you comfortable

  A point source does not mean that all the energy of the universe existed at the point. All it means is that all the energy of the universe flowed out of the point. thus the universe came from energy which existed outside the point and flowed into it.

[jerrygg38]

This is actually a very good question and well thought out. Take a black hole for instance. We have a radiation that is expected to last for the lifetime of the universe before most black holes evaporate. Not a very spectacular bang. So if the big bang started from anything resembling a black hole then nothing has actually left the event horizon yet and the heat death hypothesis is simply the final sequence of the black hole evaporation. Our universe runs out of steam because of Hawking radiation external to its event horizon. The other alternative is that we are the result of matter tunelling through Kruskal geometry and into a white hole. All very speculative but based on mainstream physics.

Sounds good to me but what is Kruskal geometry? As I see it black holes and white holes are opposite sides of a coin. Energy flows into black holes and exists from white holes. I believe they exist at the same exact points in space. The universe is the product of the explosion of a super black hole which produced billions of smaller black holes and these exploded to produce the galaxies.

[puppypower]

Space-time begins with the big bang. Because space and time are integrated, this creates a cause and affect matrix. Hypothetically, say we separated the fabric of space-time into separate threads of space and separate threads of time? The normal cause and affect between space and time will no longer exist, since each can act apart from the other.

An analogy is two children are tethered with a rope for a three legged race. Because of this connection they will need to learn to work together, since the movement of one will always impact the moment of the other. If we cut the rope, now they can move in independent ways, that were not allowed because of the tether. The tether can cancel movement in opposite directions, but without the rope, this becomes possible.

If you can move in time without the limits of space, you can appear to violate the speed of light, since you can move anywhere in the universe in zero time. But there is no violation of cause and affect or the speed of light, because the cause and affect imposed by space-time do not apply when space and time are not team up in the three legged race. A different set of principles will define the cause and affect; based on no tether.

On the other hand, say you have two synchronized walkers who, although they are not tethered for the three legged race, move like they are tethered. There is cause and affect, that looks like the causality imposed by space-time, but this is not connected to space-time.


If you look at the matrix of the human imagination, the information connections between the imagery in the imagination, does not have to be limited to natural laws. I can pretend to fly to the moon flapping my arms. This is not possible in space-time as a physical reality, but it is possible at the level of information in the imagination.

On the other hand, the physical laws of the universe will create output and sensory feedback that can enter my brain through my sensory systems; observations. These images in the imagination are tethered to physical reality. Whereas, the imagination can also break this tether and move these same casual based sensory input pieces, in ways that one would never observed with natural laws.

Or one can also use their imagination to extrapolate the tethered images from sensory reality, into new ways, that are not part of reality, but which can become part of physical reality; build a bridge. The bridge begins as non casual to reality, since it does not yet exist for collective sensory input, when it first forms in the imagination. It is not yet real. Once I build it, and tit become tangible, it becomes based on the same laws of cause and affect that apply to the rest of physical reality; others can see it; light to see!

Math is another way to do this. Math is not exactly a physical thing, yet it can mold the imagery of the imagination, in ways that we all can see. In a sense math represents something analogous to a time thread. It becomes a source of a synchronization, not limited to space-time, since math does not change with reference. E=MC2 still applies.

E=MC2 existed even before there was mass or energy if this is a natural law. The potential to form H2O existed even before stellar fusion began, since it logically follows the extrapolation of even more fundamental potentials. This might be an example of a distance thread that exist in space, independent of time. At any time water can form if space is orientated properly; nuclear and chemical bond lengths.

[garth john greiner]

Regardless of what brought about the big bang whether it be a race of beings that propergate universes or its some sort of continuous multivers event the fact is there was a cause and we are now observing and living within the effect.
In my mind putting all the complicated theories to one side for a moment there is no reason why any big bang event should violate causality, surely any event that brings about an infrastructure thats main purpose is to ultimately form life
will have causality woven into its processes ?