Problems with the Big Bang theory

This is a good point. The way the question under consideration usually gets posed is as a declaration, for example, "The Big Bang is impossible because something can't come from nothing." I think that's the way the issue is being addressed in this thread. It isn't being said that the matter in the universe came from quantum fluctuations. It is more like, "If the Big Bang is impossible, it isn't because something can't come from nothing, because something most certainly can from nothing, and the Casimir effect is an example."Read on before replying, I think you'll like what comes next much more than the above.I don't think anyone is trying to say that current theory includes an explanation for the origin of matter in the Big Bang. I know you disagree with the layperson-level explanation of the Casimir effect in terms of virtual particles, and Wikipedia is now pretty clear on this point (has this article been revised recently), describing it as just one of the interpretations of the Casimir effect that derives from the implications of a particular mathematical approach.What you're pointing out is that we can speak with more accuracy and certainty if we describe the Casimir effect in terms of the all-pervading energy field of the universe, which means that what we've been describing as nothing, namely the vacuum between two closely positioned plates, isn't really nothing. The tiny space between the two plates is still filled with this energy, and so it isn't nothing. And so saying that the Casimir effect is an example of something coming from nothing is not accurate, because there isn't nothing between the plates.While this level of detail is not representative of or consistent with the level of understanding of the original question concerning the origin of matter, perhaps it is nonetheless time to change what has become our stock answer to this stock question. The danger is that providing more detail about quantum issues could be even more confusing to someone who in another thread might well be arguing that you can't get a cat from a dog. Perhaps we should say that we don't know where the matter came from, but that we certainly don't know that there was really nothing before there was matter.--Percy

I was just gonna ask you where the energy came from before I saw this! When we say that we don't know, it doesnt mean that we are blaspheming our beliefs....it simply means that Faith/Belief has handed the ball off to Science...or visa versa.

if you universe did'nt come into being by a higher intelligence like God ect..then it must of started some how, and thats the thing that amaze's me , i find
it mind blowing how theres something rather than nothing it fancinates me,personly i like the chaotic inflation theory that says theres many universe's and
we just live in one of them, to me that solves alot of the fine tuning problems ect..also id love to meet some of you guys and have this discussion over a few beers
i recon it would be most enjoyable

WOW!!! Thank you so much cavediver!!! Finally someone who sees what I am asking. I may not have a trememdous amount of knowledge about quantum fluctuations or the Casimir Effect, but I have common sense. And that has been with man since the dawn of time. Common sense was telling me that even with quantum fluctuations, you have to start with something. Our finite minds cannot even comprehend absolute nothingness. Even in a vacuum there is something. This is what I have been trying to explain to everybody. You said it perfectly. Thanks!!

Hi DB. Welcome! I hope you stay around. Intelligent Design creationists who believe there's a better hypothesis of origins have the same problem. We cannot explain, physically observe or fully comprehend an eternal supreme designer creator. The difference is that to be scientific, we are required to do so.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW ---- Jesus said, "When these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads, for your redemption draws near." Luke 21:28

True, but be careful of that common sense. More often than not, common sense will lead you down a road to complete ignorance of modern physics. In 99% of cases it is not to be trusted.Anyway, the simple summarisation of all this is as follows:The universe (by which I mean all that which is open to scientific discovery) either*:Extends back a finite amount of time.
Extends back an infinite amount of time.There is no "something from nothing" in either case. In both cases the Universe exists, that is all. In neither case is God precluded from being the creator of these universes. From the current standpoint of physics, in neither case is an act of creation necessary. In neither case do we have a reason for why there is existence.{* actually, it's not quite as simple as this, but it will do to make the point}

Let me first follow the digression into the Casimir Effect. I'm going to be pedantic at this point just to tighten your definitions up a little... Yes, but at the moment we still have *several* fields. The observed Casimir Effect is a function of the photon and electron fields of QED. And be careful of the term "energy"... you'll be talking about "vibrations" and "balance" next Energy is an emergent concept from the fields... it's not what they are "made" of. Hmmm, there's that E word again. The whole point of the Casimir Effect is to show the existence of -ve energy state, or a state below the vacuum. Hopefully you picked up from the Wiki article the idea that only certain wave-modes will fit between the conductors (as the wave-modes have to obey the boundary conditions imposed by the conductors), and thus there are less vacuum wave-modes between the conductors than in free space so less of them gives less than vacuum... in other words, -ve energy states. This in turn leads to the inward force of the true-vaccum on this restricted vacuum.From that paragraph you may start to realise - what the hell does that have to do with any questions regarding the Big Bang and "something from nothing"? Answer - absolutely zilch (for fear of using the N word and it being taken out of context) Absolutely.So back to I know what you're saying here, and I agree with the sentiment, but I would like to go further and say "something from nothing" should never be mentioned at all, other than to say such an idea is not part of physics. It all comes back to immense (and completely understandable) lack of comprehension of our modern understanding of time. To me, there is as much of a beginning to the Big Bang as there is to the Steady State. This f'ing obsession with matter... arrgghhh!!! Matter is simply excitations in the fields of which the space-time is the master field. The fields are all intrinsically linked and one day we will probably discover that they are all one superfield (which we thought we'd found long ago with N=8 SUGRA). There seems to be this idea that we have the universe and into it we inject some matter... NO! That is certainly how GR works, but we are 100 years beyond that now.The general idea is that existence is a field. The large scale topology of the field is what gives shape to the (4d) universe. One aspect of the field gives what we call distance and time. Small scale variations in that aspect give gravitational waves. Another aspect gives rise to long range electromagnetism. Small variations in this aspect give rise to photons. Other aspects don't have long range behaviour but on the short scale, their variations manifest as electrons, quarks, etc.Of course, I'm not claiming this is the final story. But it is the step in understanding that has to be taken to get away from this idea of matter being stuff "in" the universe.To ask "where does the matter come from?" is to ask "where does the universe come from?" Conservation of energy is a statement concerning local symmetry of the field. It has nothing to do with matter "appearing" at the Big Bang. All that is required is that the entire 4D field with all of its curvature, e/m, matter, etc is consistent.Why do we have such confusion? Simple. It is down to the biggest mystery of all, something that Chiroptera alluded to a couple of days ago. We have this wonderful 4d view of reality that makes complete sense. It is utterly static, lifeless, permanent, fixed... yet us, as humans, have this experience we call time, which is an evolving viewpoint on this fixed 4D universe that gives the impression of dynamics, movement, life, conciousness. What is all that about? Is it a natural consequence of the universe and large scale emergent complexity such as thermodynamics? This is how I see it.Anyway, the result is we have this peculiar concept called "time" and we seem to think it has dominance over every other aspect of reality, leading to "how do you get something from nothing?", "what came before the Big Bang", "the Big bang breaks conservation of energy?" and "where does the matter come from?"But this "time" appears to be just a high level emergent concept, and we are terribly confused...{apologies - written in a hurry and probably makes for very poor reading!}Edited by cavediver, : Apology added

Yes, this is the core issue. You can see why someone once resorted to the qunatum fluctuation argument just to shut someone up. And I can't really blame them. I couldn't go along with as this is really downplaying our understanding. But how do you explain that mumbo-jumbo I expounded in the post above?Got to go...

Hi Cavediver,While part of the problems you identified in my descriptions derive from my own misunderstandings, another portion of it is due to trying to stay true to the way the question was originally posed by DivineBeginning. But I think you're very clear explanations indicate that perhaps it is safe to point out that "Where did matter come from?" is the wrong question. The difficulty in responding to the question in this way is that without your expertise I think people like me are quite capable of bolloxing up the whole explanation and confusing everyone involved.Would my descriptions have appeared more correct if I had used the term "energy field" more consistently instead of occasionally saying just "energy"? Or is my error more fundamental than that? In answer to your question, yes, I understood the Wiki article where it characterized the force in terms of resonances of energy fields.Today isn't the day for me to be asking detailed questions about the rest of your post, and you sound short of time, too, but I was able to follow and understand what you're saying. But it will take further discussion and clarification before I'm able to incorporate this into any of my own thinking, hope you don't mind. I guess my biggest puzzlement is related to when you said in your just previous message that there really isn't an origins problem because the universe is either infinite in time or not. Maybe if you could say a bit more about that when you have time we could start there.--Percy

I recall that cavediver wrote a pretty good description about how the production of virtual particles are explained through quantum field theory. I haven't been able to find it, and I have been waiting for him to step in and repeat it.(If you don't do this, cavediver, I'll have to do this myself, and since I don't know QFT myself I'm sure the results are going to be a bit of a mess!)

---

Kings were put to death long before 21 January 1793. But regicides of earlier times and their followers were interested in attacking the person, not the principle, of the king. They wanted another king, and that was all. It never occurred to them that the throne could remain empty forever. -- Albert Camus

That'd be a very difficult topic to explain, since virtual particles only appear if you do QFT a certain way (perturbatively). If we had the ability to do the kind of super-integrals that pop up in QFT, virtual particles would never have even been that big of an idea.
Basically they're tied to a specific method of analysis, plus there is the subtlety that the virtual particles are virtual free-particles.I'll try to come up with my own explanation, if I get round to it.

If scientists had been able to foresee such misconceptions, they might have called it the Big Sprawl, or something like that.Big Bang certainly does conjure up images of booming bombs, which makes me wonder why the scientists chose it in the first place... shame on you, scientists, shame on you! J0N

Even if we WERE all "evolutionists," that would say nothing of our ability to understand anything about the origins of the Universe, or our likelyhood of accepting/not accepting the views of "mainstream" science. Which makes me wonder, do you simply accept this stuff because the scientists say it's so? Without questioning it? Without looking for the information?Secondly, unless you're willing to get a pretty in-depth book on the subject, or go to a really hard-core science school, you're most likely to learn/be taught that the Big Bang WAS a big explosion that happened out in space. You souldn't blame someone for being stupid just because they are being taught through misguided sources.J0N

The name Big Bang was provided by Fred Hoyle, who as an advocate of steady state theory was seeking the most derisive name possible.--Percy

Except, of course, in your fairytale world where things pip-pop out of nowhere at the word of God.Why don't you show ME some evidence that proves something CAN'T come from nothing? You made the claim; you have to back it up. You can't just spout mindless crap and then sit and laugh as people run frantically to find all sorts of facts to shoot it down !You're making a claim. A claim that claims Big Bang is false because there is a "factual problem" with a "part of the theory" which isn't really a part of the theory at all. After building your pretty little scarecrow and setting it alight, you then stand back and claim that all this is evidence that God created the world, and that it is good, and that He is happy, and blah blah blah... (vomit emoticon).J0N

---

In considering the Origin of Species, it is quite conceivable that a naturalist... might come to the conclusion that each species had not been independently created, but had descended, like varieties, from other species. - Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species