Big Bang...How Did it Happen?

Every other time science has thought that something had no cause science turned out to be wrong. Before the 1800s science did not even know about micro-organisms and the germs that caused disease. They had other theories as to the cause of disease which now seem stupid to us. One of the Greek philosophers, I forget which one, thought that certain kinds of fish came into existence for no reason, because he could not see the microscopic eggs from which they hatched.My point is that science is once again assuming, in quantum mechanics, that since things appear to have no cause, they actually have no cause! Don't you think it would be more intellectually honest to say that "we don't know why quantum mechanics behaves this way" instead of saying "quantum mechanics behaves this way for no reason?"

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Yes, they were doing their best, but they still turned out to be wrong. I think there is something we are missing, something that we can't yet see, that is creating the effects of quantum mechanics. Shouldn't we learn from the previous scientists that claimed spontaneous generation was true but were later proven wrong? The evidence they had seemed to support it, but later evidence showed they were wrong. How come the current evidence of quantum mechanics is now going through the same thing? We should learn from the mistakes of history and not conclude that something can be caused by nothing.I guess you could argue that while these previous scientists were wrong about spontaneous generation in what they were studying, the nature of QM is different because these are the most basic building blocks of nature or something like that. In other words, spontaneous generation is only true at the most fundamental level. But is QM really the most fundamental level? I think not. There is a huge flaw - the inability of QM to account for gravity. And while relativity can account for gravity, it can't do it when particles are in the tiny sizes of QM. Attempts to combine these two theories have met the little or no success.So basically there is SOMETHING really wrong with QM when it comes to gravity, and this should indicate that the theory as a whole is getting something wrong.Additionally, there has been somewhat of a return to the Einstienian (is that a real word?) view that nature is ultimately described by classical physics. Some progress has been made in this area - for example, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle has been succesfully described with classical physics. The uncertainty principle is one the the most important aspects of quantum mechanics. While this is admittedly only stratching the surface of QM, it seems to have promise.Basically, my argument is that in the past those who advocated spontaneous generation were proven wrong, so modern scientists should not jump to the same conclusions about QM, ESPECIALLY since there are serious indications that something is wrong with QM.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

You are saying that QM can account for gravity? Scientific American, September 2004, Was Einstein Right? pg 88From page 91: I'm not sure what the holographic limit is, but it is something in classical physics.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Perhaps a quantum theory of gravity will be developed, but so far it has not been and people have been working on it for quite a while. And even if our model of gravity is more likely to be wrong that QM, something is still not right with QM. I guess it depends on how you define classical physics, I was regarding relativity as "classical" in the sense that it involves more information - the variables can take on any value - as opposed to quantum physics, where variables can only have certain values and are thus discrete.The context of the quote that I gave was scientists trying to derive a quantum system from a classical system. The quote did not specifically mention the word classical, but the rest of the article makes it clear that is what is being talked about.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Sorry, I'll try to be more precise.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

1.61803,Did Newtonian gravity get thrown out when Einstien created relativity?Are you attempting to build a strawman of my argument?

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

I guess we are misunderstanding each other. I am by no means trying to discredit the big bang theory.What I am arguing is that scientists should not accept the idea that the effects observed in quantum mechanics are uncaused for 3 reasons:1. Historically, advocates of spontaneous generation, the idea that something is caused by nothing, have been proven false.2. Quantum mechanics, while able to describe many aspects of our universe, fails to describe other aspects, suggesting there is a more fundamental theory underlying it.3. An uncaused effect makes no sense. Exactly - and in the same way, the discovery that QM is not quite the true picture of reality will not trash everything that has been learned from its study.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

But by definition, effects MUST have a cause! Change requires an agent - without some force acting, nothing can change! I agree. No known cause. Why not? Just because you can't see what is making something work doesn't mean something is not making it work. Again - by definition, there must be a cause!

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

Nothing caused God. God has always been. Only an effect needs a cause - God is not an effect. Change requires a cause - God does not change. A cause is needed to make something come into existence - but God has always existed. He is eternal. If everything needed a cause, the chain would stretch on to infinity. But everything does not need a cause - every effect needs a cause. I don't feel like I am dodging the question or giving an incoherent answer - I honestly believe this and think it makes perfect sense.Sidelined - I am sorry to hear about the hard times you have gone through in life. I admire your ability to pull through and move on. Good luck in your studies in math and such.1.61803, thanks for your comments. However I still feel that God is the best explanation for the existence of the universe. If it has always existed why does the big bang suggest a beginning? Did a fluctuation cause the eternal universe to explode in the big bang? Then what caused the fluctuation? Is the universe cyclic? String theory suggests it may be, but these models are still being worked on and are far from being complete. To get around this it seems like ahtiests simply say "the universe came into existence for no reason, with no underlying cause." It seems to me that they deny the law of casuality to escape a universe created by God. But this denial is always temporary - in other things they assume casuality holds true.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

The one that says every effect must have a cause.Oh wait, you are saying that law doesn't really apply.The text that you are reading right now just popped into existence for no reason.

---

Pray for mercy from... PUSS! In boots. (Don't forget the Spanish accent!)

If that is the case, then what you just typed was not really typed by you, is that correct? Your actions had no effect and did not cause the text to be typed?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

When I press a key on my keyboard, text appears on the screen. When I don't press a key, nothing happens. Apparently, I am causing, by pressing a key, an effect - the letter on the screen.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

I know the difference between "some" and "all". I already anticipated this whole line of reasoning - that causality is true in some cases but not in all cases - back in message 329: But I want to know why QM supposedly doesn't have to follow the law of causality and everything else does. Doesn't the fact that the vast majority of things follow causality suggest that QM does too, but we just can't detect it? The fact that QM is also incomplete in explaining our universe suggests that something is wrong with it - perhaps there is underlying theory that causes the effects in QM. I mentioned an article exploring this in the magazine Scientific American, which no one has commented on, and mentioned how a more cause-effect "classical" theory can give rise to QM, which no one commented on except to squabble about how I used the word classical.I also mentioned how in the past all scientific evidence pointed to there being no cause for certain phenomena, and how this was later proven wrong, and how this is exactly like the situation we find ourslves in with QM.If the law of causality has always held true in the past, why are you doubting it now?

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

Well, did it start raining before or after the sidewalk got wet? If it started raining after the sidewalk got wet then wet sidewalks making rain may be true, but I'll bet that the sidewalk got wet AFTER it started to rain, suggesting the rain makes the sidewalk wet, which would be correct.

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?

Rei,Sorry for not responding. 1. We are to believe in a basic set of fundamental rules which "just are" because that is how God set them up. I have been trying to show reasons why QM is probably not the most fundamental set rules and that there is probably a more fundamental set of rules causing the strange effects we see in QM.2. Yes

---

If you say there no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure?