Before the Big Bang? (Origins)

by dhw, Monday, July 14, 2014, 12:01 (3783 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: You seem to understand the terminology, but clearly some terms have meanings beyond the range of normal language, which is why I need help. Once again, what is the difference between a virtual quantum vacuum and a real quantum vacuum?
DAVID: The only space we know is ours which is defined as a virtual vacuum because quanta potentially pop in and out of existence. Krauss and others make the assumption that it is that type of 'before' that existed before the bb. But I have astrong objection to that. How can anyone know that? There is no other kind of kind of space vacuum known to us., no 'real quantum vacuum'.-You are levelling the same objection to their argument as I have levelled at yours in the following question:-dhw: How can you know that the quantum layer of reality preceded our reality? How can you know that there were particles in the quantum layer of reality that preceded our reality, assuming it did precede our reality?
DAVID: Of course I don't 'know', but if I accept cause and effect there must have some quantum something, which in mycase becomes energy/God. Exact form? Only God knows.-Davies explicitly rejects cause and effect in the article, and no doubt Krauss and others do too. And they would probably answer “Of course we don't know, but if you accept there was no cause and effect, there can't have been a quantum something.” You all argue from basic premises for which you have no evidence. I remain on your side, in that I cannot accept the “no before” or the “out of nothing” scenarios, but I find it hard to grasp how a virtual quantum vacuum can produce transient potential particles which constitute the real world. I don't know why there has to be a vacuum of any kind. Since all these theories are based on unproven suppositions, how about this: We know that energy exists, and we know that matter exists, and whether or not the big bang theory is true (something we don't know), maybe energy and matter have always existed, and maybe there have been countless big bangs in the past, reaching back for all eternity. And if you want to shove in the word “quantum” somewhere, feel free to do so.-Dhw: You have somehow distinguished between “our reality” and “reality”. Why do you say there is nothing in our reality? Is it not full of particles and perturbations?
David: If Kastner and Heisenberg are correct, there is another layeer whre all the intial quantum activity starts.Our layer is seeing the secondary parts of the quantum reactions. So the answer is,yes, but originating in theprimary quantum layer.-Am I right in thinking that what you call the secondary layer is the reality we know, and the primary layer is the reality which you believe consciously created the secondary layer? If so, why do we need all this quantum stuff? Davies wrote: “[People] suspect that scientists can't explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors.” I would not dream of attributing such a base motive to the various theorists, but I really begin to wonder whether they are not befuddling themselves and us with their speculations about the quantum world. After all, the only thing everyone seems to agree on is that nobody understands it.
 
dhw: I don't want to try your patience, but if you can answer these questions, it may help me to understand why your theory is feasible even though Vilenkin, Krauss and Stenger (and Davies in this article) insist there was no “before”.
DAVID: Their "before" requires time which obviously does not exist. My logic says cause and effect must exist. They all use virtual quantum vacuum to create the bb. From no before! Do you really follow their logic?-No, but I don't follow yours either. I simply cannot understand how you can have a before, and a sequence of cause and effect, without time. But you and I have a different concept of time. Mine is the flow from past to present to future. I accept that the only past, present and future we know - just like the only universe we know - is ours, and our time and universe are presumed to have begun with the big bang. But if we believe in cause and effect, we simply do not know what happened earlier, and so we cannot assume that there has not been an eternal flow of time, causes and effects, perhaps in the form of energy transmuting itself into matter, innumerable big bangs, or no big bangs at all. Quantum this and quantum that don't make the slightest difference, other than adding a scientifically potent word to whatever theory you believe in.