Absurdity of the universe without a creator

[EarthScienceguy]

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator in light of the following?

1. The universe without a creator breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

The question that needs to be answered: Where did all of the energy come from? I am using space and energy as synonymous terms because energy comes from space.

2. The universe without a creator breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why we are individuals and not a Boltzmann brain?

3. The universe without a creator breaks all laws of probability.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do? Or why do we have laws of nature?

There are more but we will stop at three.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #49]
If the universe is expanding, you are looking out in every direction at a smaller universe. Do you not see the problem?

[Difflugia]

OK. What's the violation of the conservation of energy?

If you are saying the brane or bulk is eternal then nothing.

That wasn't a trick question. You said that something about brane cosmology supports your assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy. What is that?

So the bulk would have to contain all energy therefore omnipotent

That's not what omnipotent means.

and everywhere would have to be contained in the bulk therefore omnipresent

That's not the definition of omnipresent, either, but is just some sort of tautology. It's just like saying, "the inside of a house is omnipresent within the house."

that would include every moment on the timeline also, therefore the bulk would be omnipresent. Four-dimensional spacetime demands that that past present and future exist. Therefore the point of creation was not just one instant but every point in the timeline. Therefore the creator had to create every point and every place on the timeline at the same time.

The way you're using the words creator, creation, omnipotent, and omnipresent is not how Christian theologians apply any of them to God. You're free to redefine them, but then they have no bearing on the discussion.

At this point, so what? You were asserting that "the universe" (presumably implying necessarily all possible, or at least plausible, cosmologies) violates the conservation of energy.

It does if you do not believe that something is eternal.

You've offered no valid support for this. You've instead established that you don't understand what the conservation of energy means by claiming that because a net zero energy universe still "contains" energy, it somehow violates the conservation of energy. Viewed charitably, that may be a valid argument in defense of something, but it doesn't support the assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy.

I am not the one that brought up Krauss book. I simply saying that Krauss' book does not answer the question of where the universe came from.

You totally are:

Oh! Good old Dr. Krauss and book "A Universe from Nothing". Not peer-reviewed paper but book.

The first mention of any source was you claiming that A Universe from Nothing wasn't good enough as a source. Neither are The Wind in the Willows or To Kill a Mockingbird, but I didn't feel the need to list them.

The what started the tunneling event. Where did the energy come from to start the tunneling event? Vilenkin does not answer these questions and that is why his theory is not the predominant theory of where the universe came from.

Now you're just bluffing:

As a result of the tunneling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere (“nucleates”) and immediately starts to inflate. The radius of the newborn universe is determined by the vacuum energy density: the higher the density, the smaller the radius. For a grand-unified vacuum, it is one hundred-trillionth of a centimeter. Because of inflation, this tiny universe grows at a staggering rate, and in a small fraction of a second it becomes much greater than the size of our observable region.

If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all. Take, for example, a radioactive atom. It has some probability of decaying, which is the same from this minute to the next. Eventually, it will decay, but there will be nothing that causes it to decay at that particular moment. Nucleation of the universe is also a quantum process and does not require a cause.

No, I was simply answering your assertion that Tryon's theory answered the question of where the universe came from. So like I asserted earlier Tryon's theory was discarded.

That wasn't my assertion. Perhaps you wanted it to be, but it was a response to your implication that Krauss was the source (only source? main source? representative source?) of zero-energy cosmology.

This universe does violate the law of conservation of energy.

{{citation needed}}

You indicated that YOU believe this universe does violate the law of conservation of energy when you said that you believe that the bulk is eternal.

I haven't said that. There are cosmologies accepted by physicists that say that. Your argument was and is that the universe violates the conservation of energy, despite literally every cosmology proposal addressing that very point in some way.

You are the one that brought up Tryon's bubble machine not me and you also brought up quantum tunneling as viable options to produce a universe from nothing. I was simply answering the assertions you made.

The assertion that I made is that Tryon's proposal was peer-reviewed and didn't violate the conservation of energy. You tried to poke different holes in that by plagiarizing creationist quote-mining, then tried to attack those using a kind of common-sense argument based on bad definitions.

You have yet to actually support your claim.

Yes, and absolutely nothing produces absolutely nothing, at least that is what the law of conservation of energy states.

That's not what the law of conservation of energy states. The law of conservation of energy states that the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a closed system remains constant. Adding a thousand positives is fine as long as it's balanced with a thousand negatives. Whether or not you can successfully argue that the positives and negatives must "come from somewhere," their presence or absence doesn't violate the conservation of energy as long as the sum remains constant.

But I understand that people have different theologies and that false theologies produce false realities.

QFT

[William]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #52]

But I understand that people have different theologies and that false theologies produce false realities.

QFT

Quantum Field Theory?

[Difflugia]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #52]

But I understand that people have different theologies and that false theologies produce false realities.

QFT

Quantum Field Theory?

"Quoted for truth."

[Bradskii]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #47]

Let's be more accurate. We know that this universe had a beginning. Let me know when you discover that there was nothing on the other side of the big bang. In the meantime, may I suggest you check out Sir Roger Penrose's proposal for a cyclic universe. Solves the problem of infinite time very well indeed (as does Hawkin's no-boundary proposal).

Yes, Penrose abanded his previous work on gravity fluctuations because of entropy of a black hole was way too high to produce the universe in which we live. The cyclic universe has been proposed before. And it's demised was caused by high entropy that it would produce if I remember correctly but don't quote me on that one.

Demised? It seems you don't know much about it. Let me know when you do.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #47]
"We know that this universe had a beginning."

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. “ – Mark Twain

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #52]

That wasn't a trick question. You said that something about brane cosmology supports your assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy. What is that?
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:30 am

That this universe violates the law of conservation of energy. If it did not then there would be no need for an eternal brane.

So the bulk would have to contain all energy therefore omnipotent
That's not what omnipotent means.

Omnipotent - having ultimate power and influence.

Whatever it is that contains all energy would have the ultimate influence.

and everywhere would have to be contained in the bulk therefore omnipresent
That's not the definition of omnipresent, either, but is just some sort of tautology. It's just like saying, "the inside of a house is omnipresent within the house."

If the house is all there is, then it would be omnipresent. It would be everywhere because there would be no other place but in the house.

EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Thu Oct 14, 2021 11:30 am
that would include every moment on the timeline also, therefore the bulk would be omnipresent. Four-dimensional spacetime demands that that past present and future exist. Therefore the point of creation was not just one instant but every point in the timeline. Therefore the creator had to create every point and every place on the timeline at the same time.
The way you're using the words creator, creation, omnipotent, and omnipresent is not how Christian theologians apply any of them to God. You're free to redefine them, but then they have no bearing on the discussion.

I am simply applying these terms to the creator you believe in, the multiverse, the bulk, or maybe the brane I do not think you have decided yet which one is the creator you believe in. I am not redefining them just applying them to your choice of a creator.

You've offered no valid support for this. You've instead established that you don't understand what the conservation of energy means by claiming that because a net-zero energy universe still "contains" energy, it somehow violates the conservation of energy. Viewed charitably, that may be a valid argument in defense of something, but it doesn't support the assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy.

Ok, let me put it like this. For an equation to be correct the dimensions on the left side of the equation have to be the same as the dimensions on the right side of the equation. Like for example, Newton’s have the derived units of kg m / s^2. The equation is F=ma is correct because force measured in newtons (kg m/s^2) is the same as the units on the right side mass (kg) times acceleration m/s^2.
What Krauss is trying to argue is that length (L) and time (t) came from nothing (dimensionless). That would mean that L / T = dimensionless. This is an indication of an internally inconsistent theory.

As a result of the tunneling event, a finite-sized universe, filled with a false vacuum, pops out of nowhere (“nucleates”) and immediately starts to inflate. The radius of the newborn universe is determined by the vacuum energy density: the higher the density, the smaller the radius. For a grand-unified vacuum, it is one hundred-trillionth of a centimeter. Because of inflation, this tiny universe grows at a staggering rate, and in a small fraction of a second, it becomes much greater than the size of our observable region.

Ok, lets examine this tunneling event. This is from the paper Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing.

With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time [6], and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally. Although the picture of the universe created spontaneously from nothing has emerged for a long time, a rigorous mathematical foundation for such a picture is still missing. According to Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle, a small empty space, also called a small true vacuum bubble, can be created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum.

At first look this may seem like it supports your claim that the universe came from nothing. But words have meaning notice that these bubbles were “created probabilistically by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum”. One may ask what is a metastable false vacuum.
“A false vacuum [bold]exists at a local minimum of energy and is therefore not stable[/bold], in contrast to a true vacuum, which exists at a global minimum and is stable.”

A false vacuum is a minimum energy not no energy. So again where did the energy come from.

If there was nothing before the universe popped out, then what could have caused the tunneling? Remarkably, the answer is that no cause is required. In classical physics, causality dictates what happens from one moment to the next, but in quantum mechanics the behavior of physical objects is inherently unpredictable and some quantum processes have no cause at all. Take, for example, a radioactive atom. It has some probability of decaying, which is the same from this minute to the next. Eventually, it will decay, but there will be nothing that causes it to decay at that particular moment. Nucleation of the universe is also a quantum process and does not require a cause.

I am of the belief along with others that quantum theory is incomplete not incorrect just incomplete. In this case radioactive decay is a function of time and is caused by energy (too much internal energy in the nucleus) and gives off energy. Whereas the when an atom undergoes nuclear decay may be a random event the event is caused by energy. It seems to be like evaporation of water. We do not know which atom is going to get enough energy to escape the surface tension in the water but we can calculate how long it will take a certain volume of water to evaporate.

The cause is known when the event will occur is not known.

That wasn't my assertion. Perhaps you wanted it to be, but it was a response to your implication that Krauss was the source (only source? main source? representative source?) of zero-energy cosmology.

Yes, and I also said it was discredited and it was.

This universe does violate the law of conservation of energy.

https://phys.org/news/2017-01-violation ... -dark.html

quote that indicates that this universe doesn’t (citation needed)

I haven't said that. There are cosmologies accepted by physicists that say that. Your argument was and is that the universe violates the conservation of energy, despite literally every cosmology proposal addressing that very point in some way.

Those cosmologies would not be needed if the universe we inhabit did not break the law of conservation of energy.

The assertion that I made is that Tryon's proposal was peer-reviewed and didn't violate the conservation of energy. You tried to poke different holes in that by plagiarizing creationist quote-mining, then tried to attack those using a kind of common-sense argument based on bad definitions.

That was far from quote mining I showed you how they thought that Tryon’s ideas were not correct.

That's not what the law of conservation of energy states. The law of conservation of energy states that the sum of kinetic and potential energy in a closed system remains constant. Adding a thousand positives is fine as long as it's balanced with a thousand negatives. Whether or not you can successfully argue that the positives and negatives must "come from somewhere," their presence or absence doesn't violate the conservation of energy as long as the sum remains constant.

So where did the energy for the metastable false vacuum come from?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Bradskii in post #47]

Let's be more accurate. We know that this universe had a beginning. Let me know when you discover that there was nothing on the other side of the big bang. In the meantime, may I suggest you check out Sir Roger Penrose's proposal for a cyclic universe. Solves the problem of infinite time very well indeed (as does Hawkin's no-boundary proposal).

Yes, Penrose abanded his previous work on gravity fluctuations because of entropy of a black hole was way too high to produce the universe in which we live. The cyclic universe has been proposed before. And it's demised was caused by high entropy that it would produce if I remember correctly but don't quote me on that one.

Demised? It seems you don't know much about it. Let me know when you do.

This theory has long since been discarded 80's or 90's.

I should have just went with my first thought.

TIn the 1920's and 1930's, a version was explored in the context of modern cosmology by Tolman (4) and others. That version entailed an overdense closed universe in which our three dimensional world expands and contracts at regular intervals. The idea was set aside because, as Tolman first pointed out, the entropy produced during each cycle would be concentrated during the contracting phase, adding to the entropy produced in earlier phases. The entropy density at the end of each contraction causes the next expansion cycle to be longer than the one before. The cycles cannot be identical, as originally imagined. Instead, extrapolating backwards from the present entropy, the universe would have undergone smaller and smaller cycles in the past converging rapidly towards zero duration. The total age of the universe would not be significantly different from a universe with no cycles. Since the main purpose of considering a cyclic universe is to push back the "beginning" indefinitely, the entropy problem was viewed as a serious impediment and discouraged further work. Today, we would also discard this idea because it requires an overdense universe, whereas observations inform us that the mass density is only about one-fourth of the critical value required to cycle. https://www.physics.princeton.edu//~ste ... philo2.htm

The above paper also describes the new "cyclic' universe. This idea of the universe still needs other dimensions and string theories branes and bulk. I like the ideas in string theory but it still has serious problems. One of the main ones is that it cannot be tested.

[thomasdixon]

How does the energy given off by an atomic bomb compare to the energy used to set off the atomic bomb?
Where does the conservation of energy equation fit into this-?
Just asking

ATOMIC BOMB.jpg

[brunumb]

How does the energy given off by an atomic bomb compare to the energy used to set off the atomic bomb?
Where does the conservation of energy equation fit into this-?
Just asking
ATOMIC BOMB.jpg

The fragments of the atoms that are split during nuclear fission are far more stable and therefore have less stored nuclear energy than the original atoms. This large amount of energy must be released. That is achieved by converting a tiny portion of the original mass into its energy equivalent. According to E = mc^2, that tiny amount of mass converts to a huge amount of energy.