Origin of the Big Bang

[pskl]

While reading about theoretical particle physics (a few of these theories are currently under experimentation at the LHC), I came up with a possible explanation for the origin of the Big Bang (and a few other open questions as well).

 

It's probably bogus—after all, I have precisely 0 post-highschool science credentials.

 

Here's a synopsis of my line of thinking.

 

· Cause and effect, as we typically think of them, aren't the original catalysts of the Big Bang because the Big Bang (effect) itself required a cause. This cause in turn implies a preceding effect that also required a cause. So, thinking of the Big Bang as the initial cause of the universe is a paradox with no solution, as you cannot have the Big Bang (effect) without a cause preceding it.

 

· There must be some other way to account for the existence of our universe.

 

· Implicate order is another process that might lead to an effect without a chronologically preceding cause.

 

· There are certain theoretical conditions in Einstein's theory of relativity that allow for matter traveling at velocities surpassing the speed of light to travel backwards in time.

 

· A neutrino is a particle theorized to have the ability to travel at these kinds of speeds.

 

· If we can harness the ability to send messages back in time, we can create an alternate universe whose initial conditions we have set up in advance and whose initial particles exist at the time the message is sent.

 

· If we send a neutrino back in time, attaching, through quantum teleportation, both the original information and the necessary particles, this new universe could inherit the initial cause required to make the Big Bang.

 

· Additionally, if we can create a Big Bang, we could also have been caused by another universe harnessing the knowledge, information, and particles required to make our Big Bang happen.

 

· This "initial" universe, in turn, may have been caused by yet another universe created through the same process (the original impetus, again, would be implicate order). This would support the possibility that there could be a non-finite number of alternate universes existing within the same multi-dimensional space.

 

 

 

Thoughts?

[Tres Juicy]

Ok, so if this universe was created as a result of an event in another universe, what created that one?

 

You'll come out with the same paradox in a different universe

 

Looks like it's turtles all the way down I'm afraid

[pskl]

This is where I have to defer to Bohm's implicate order and the work of Hertog and Hawking. Grain of salt caveats and whatnot, but here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Hawking, under the heading "Research Fields".

 

 

"Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration from one particular initial state. Top-down cosmology posits that in some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many possible histories. In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an ensemble of multiple universes."

[Tres Juicy]

This is where I have to defer to Bohm's implicate order and the work of Hertog and Hawking. Grain of salt caveats and whatnot, but here's a paragraph from the Wikipedia article on Hawking, under the heading "Research Fields".

 

 

"Along with Thomas Hertog at CERN, in 2006 Hawking proposed a theory of "top-down cosmology," which says that the universe had no unique initial state, and therefore it is inappropriate for physicists to attempt to formulate a theory that predicts the universe's current configuration from one particular initial state. Top-down cosmology posits that in some sense, the present "selects" the past from a superposition of many possible histories. In doing so, the theory suggests a possible resolution of the fine-tuning question: It is inevitable that we find our universe's present physical constants, as the current universe "selects" only those past histories that led to the present conditions. In this way, top-down cosmology provides an anthropic explanation for why we find ourselves in a universe that allows matter and life, without invoking an ensemble of multiple universes."

 

It still doesn't explain where it came from.

 

So, the universe is here now and selected an appropriate past. If it selects its own past how/when did it get to the point of selection?

 

It has to exist in order to select

[Dekan]

It still doesn't explain where it came from.

 

So, the universe is here now and selected an appropriate past. If it selects its own past how/when did it get to the point of selection?

 

It has to exist in order to select

 

Yes. Even saying "Where did the Universe come from", implies something already there. For the Universe to come from. Some kind of starting point. But then, where did the "point" come from.

 

Perhaps it was the bottom-most turtle in the stack. But that turtle must have hatched from an egg. So who laid the egg? An even earlier (parthenogenetic to avoid sexual complications) turtle? That would be a kind of contradiction.

 

So perhaps the "original" turtle, didn't come from an egg. It was created ex nihilio by God. But then, who created God? And who created the entity that created God?

 

All this is just chasing things endlessly backwards. To get an idea of the Universe, we need to accept that it has always existed. Perhaps in different states over time- expanding /contracting, 3-dimensional, higher-dimensional, made of matter, anti-matter, dark matter, or whatever.

 

But always - in a steady state of existence.

 

In that sense, wasn't Fred Hoyle right to deride "Big Bang" type theories?

[Tres Juicy]

Yes. Even saying "Where did the Universe come from", implies something already there. For the Universe to come from. Some kind of starting point. But then, where did the "point" come from.

 

Perhaps it was the bottom-most turtle in the stack. But that turtle must have hatched from an egg. So who laid the egg? An even earlier (parthenogenetic to avoid sexual complications) turtle? That would be a kind of contradiction.

 

So perhaps the "original" turtle, didn't come from an egg. It was created ex nihilio by God. But then, who created God? And who created the entity that created God?

 

All this is just chasing things endlessly backwards. To get an idea of the Universe, we need to accept that it has always existed. Perhaps in different states over time- expanding /contracting, 3-dimensional, higher-dimensional, made of matter, anti-matter, dark matter, or whatever.

 

But always - in a steady state of existence.

 

In that sense, wasn't Fred Hoyle right to deride "Big Bang" type theories?

 

Not necessarily, even if the universe had always existed in some form, there could well have been a big bang event as a start of its current state

 

It does seem that when you go looking for the begining of the universe you end up chasing infinities...

[pskl]

Yes. Even saying "Where did the Universe come from", implies something already there. For the Universe to come from. Some kind of starting point. But then, where did the "point" come from.

 

Perhaps it was the bottom-most turtle in the stack. But that turtle must have hatched from an egg. So who laid the egg? An even earlier (parthenogenetic to avoid sexual complications) turtle? That would be a kind of contradiction.

 

So perhaps the "original" turtle, didn't come from an egg. It was created ex nihilio by God. But then, who created God? And who created the entity that created God?

 

All this is just chasing things endlessly backwards. To get an idea of the Universe, we need to accept that it has always existed. Perhaps in different states over time- expanding /contracting, 3-dimensional, higher-dimensional, made of matter, anti-matter, dark matter, or whatever.

 

But always - in a steady state of existence.

 

In that sense, wasn't Fred Hoyle right to deride "Big Bang" type theories?

 

 

"According to David Bohm's theory, implicate and explicate orders are characterised by:

 

In the enfolded [or implicate] order, space and time are no longer the dominant factors determining the relationships of dependence or independence of different elements. Rather, an entirely different sort of basic connection of elements is possible, from which our ordinary notions of space and time, along with those of separately existent material particles, are abstracted as forms derived from the deeper order. These ordinary notions in fact appear in what is called the "explicate" or "unfolded" order, which is a special and distinguished form contained within the general totality of all the implicate orders (Bohm 1980, p. xv)."

 

 

There are instances wherein we can see the creator and the created giving rise to each other. It isn't always linear--often, in fact, it's a feedback loop.

 

In any event, any thoughts on the notion that we ourselves might be, at some point, the creators of a new universe? We probably don't know enough about neutrinos to even have much of an idea about the plausibility, but if neutrinos can indeed travel backwards in time and if, indeed, we can tie information/matter/mass to them and induce quantum teleportation, would that imply the ability to create another universe divergent with our own on account of the effective change in "initial conditions?" Something akin to the "butterfly effect?"

 

 

 

 

Edited January 13, 2012 by pskl