A Universe from Nothing…

[FWI]

The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed, in the journal Nature that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential and certain famous atheists have used this theory to claim that the universe we live in, came from nothing. I, for one, disagree and suggest that this is impossible.

So, what do you say about the claim that our universe came from nothing?

[Artie]

William: In order for one to reach that conclusion,, one would have to ignore ones own definition of "Energy".
Is one willing to do that?

No I don't ignore my own definiton of energy.

If not, then perhaps one can answer the arguments I presented regarding the definitions of energy one linked the reader to.

For now though, if that is your answer...that energy does not exist in this universe, then where does it exist?

We don't know of any places where it does exist.

If your answer is that it does not exist at all, then yes - we can agree that it seems odd that scientists are using something that doesn't exist at all, as an example. Things have to first exist before they can be used as an example about things that exist, wouldn't you agree?

Scientists are saying that there is POSITIVE energy in the universe and there is NEGATIVE energy in the universe. They are describing these energies and their effects such as kinetic energy or gravitation but the total amount of energy in the universe is zero! Scientists say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! But you can have positive and negative energy just as long as the sum total is zero because then no energy was created or destroyed! Can you tell me if you have a limit as to have many ways and how many times the same has to be explained to you?

[William]

[Replying to post 80 by Artie]

Artie: The total amount of energy in the universe when you deduct negative gravitational energy from positive energy tied up in matter = zero. Zero energy, zero god.

William: In order for one to reach that conclusion,, one would have to ignore ones own definition of "Energy".
Is one willing to do that?

If not, then perhaps one can answer the arguments I presented regarding the definitions of energy one linked the reader to.

For now though, if that is your answer...that energy does not exist in this universe, then where does it exist?
If your answer is that it does not exist at all, then yes - we can agree that it seems odd that scientists are using something that doesn't exist at all, as an example. Things have to first exist before they can be used as an example about things that exist, wouldn't you agree?

Artie: We don't know of any places where it does exist.

William: Yet you then state the following...

Artie: Scientists are saying that there is POSITIVE energy in the universe and there is NEGATIVE energy in the universe.

William: Which tends to suggest then, that what scientist have done is to take energy and understand it as two different things which they say, do exist.
Effectively they are teaching that "this type of energy + this type of energy = no other type of energy exists to which you also add also = "No GOD".

Artie: Scientists say that energy can neither be created nor destroyed! But you can have positive and negative energy just as long as the sum total is zero because then no energy was created or destroyed!

William: We are also informed by scientists that the two types of energy in the universe will one day cease to have any effect as movement will end. Which of course gets us back to what made the energy move in the first place. What was behind the event which caused the movement and formation of the universe?
Which, brings us all the way back to my observations in post #61

For your theory to have any rational, it must have to assume that the universe has always been like it is and will always be like it is.

Science doesn't say that about the universe. Life doesn't even say that about yesterday...

[Artie]

Effectively they are teaching that "this type of energy + this type of energy = no other type of energy exists to which you also add also = "No GOD".

No. They are teaching that "this type of energy MINUS this type of energy = no energy in total. That is why it's called POSITIVE and NEGATIVE energy you see. How many times must this be repeated to you?

What was behind the event which caused the movement and formation of the universe?

A random quantum fluctuation. Here's mathematical proof. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 7ed0f304a3

[William]

[Replying to post 82 by Artie]

William: Effectively they are teaching that "this type of energy + this type of energy = no other type of energy exists to which you also add also = "No GOD".

Artie:No. They are teaching that "this type of energy MINUS this type of energy = no energy in total. That is why it's called POSITIVE and NEGATIVE energy you see.

William: So are they saying that 'positive energy' is actual energy, and negative energy is 'not actual energy'?

What was behind the event which caused the movement and formation of the universe?

Artie:A random quantum fluctuation.

William: "Random" is a theory. "Random" is not able to be shown in mathematical formulas based upon anything real.
Thus we have a 'quantum fluctuation' which can be theorized as 'random/mindless' , or as a mindful act.
Thus we simply choose which of those two, suit our particular positions.
You say "= no GOD" and I say "= GOD".

[Artie]

William: "Random" is a theory. "Random" is not able to be shown in mathematical formulas based upon anything real.
Thus we have a 'quantum fluctuation' which can be theorized as 'random/mindless' , or as a mindful act.
Thus we simply choose which of those two, suit our particular positions.
You say "= no GOD" and I say "= GOD".

I can't "choose" between those two anymore than I can "choose" between believing Thor to be responsible for thunder instead of natural forces. Being a logical and rational person means first going for the logical and rational and natural explanation but if one can provide so much evidence for the Thor explanation that it can be shown beyond reasonable doubt that Thor does exist and is responsible for thunder, I will reconsider and maybe even start to believe. Same goes for your god. Why don't you try the logical and rational approcach?

[Still small]

What was behind the event which caused the movement and formation of the universe?

A random quantum fluctuation. Here's mathematical proof. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 7ed0f304a3

From your link -

“At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum�. (Emphasis added) - link

A simple explanation of a “metastable false vacuum� is -
“In quantum field theory, a false vacuum is a hypothetical vacuum that is somewhat, but not entirely, stable. It may last for a very long time in that state, and might eventually move to a more stable state. The most common suggestion of how such a change might happen is called bubble nucleation – if a small region of the universe by chance reached a more stable vacuum, this 'bubble' would spread.
A false vacuum may only exist at a local minimum of energy and is therefore not stable, in contrast to a true vacuum, which exists at a global minimum and is stable. A false vacuum may be very long-lived, or metastable.� - Wiki.

A major problem with this hypothesis is that for a vacuum to exist, regardless of whether it be a ‘true’, ‘false’ or ‘metastable false vacuum’, it must have dimensions, whether physical, as within this universe, or otherwise. Theories such as that usually referred to as the Big Bang, state that expansion from a point of infinite density created 4D space-time (despite lacking a source of energy which can overcome the inverse squared Law of gravity). This, supposedly, created the 3 spacial and 1 time dimension we experience as the physical or natural universe. For either a bubble nucleation or quantum fluctuation to occur within a vacuum causing the creation of the universe, the dimensions must already exist for a vacuum to exist. This would mean that the physical dimensions required for the existence of a vacuum must already exist so as to create the physical dimensions required. This is an oxymoron.

An alternative would be that a vacuum existed within dimensions other than the 4D space-time of our physical or natural universe (as possibly suggested in String Theory) As science can only investigate things within our natural or physical universe, it cannot test, experiment, prove or disprove the existence of these extra dimensions. They are outside of or beyond science. These possible extra dimensions would be beyond the physical universe, therefore by definition, metaphysical and beyond the natural, being, again by definition, supernatural. This is the realm within which, I believe God exists and which could be classed as heaven. As it is beyond science to investigate, our understanding and knowledge of the inhabitants and capabilities would be limited to that which they choose to reveal to us. Again, this is what I believe is revealed by God in scripture. Science, per se, cannot test or investigate it.

Any other possible causation of the universe, other than quantum fluctuations, would require an explanation for creation from true nothingness, being absolute non-existence. Unfortunately, this too, is beyond science’s ability to investigate. Good luck. This being the problem for those who refuse to accept the existence of anything beyond our physical or natural universe, being the metaphysical or supernatural.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Artie]

What was behind the event which caused the movement and formation of the universe?

A random quantum fluctuation. Here's mathematical proof. https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-bl ... 7ed0f304a3

From your link -

“At the heart of their thinking is Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. This allows a small empty space to come into existence probabilistically due to fluctuations in what physicists call the metastable false vacuum�. (Emphasis added) - link

A simple explanation of a “metastable false vacuum� is -
“In quantum field theory, a false vacuum is a hypothetical vacuum that is somewhat, but not entirely, stable. It may last for a very long time in that state, and might eventually move to a more stable state. The most common suggestion of how such a change might happen is called bubble nucleation – if a small region of the universe by chance reached a more stable vacuum, this 'bubble' would spread.
A false vacuum may only exist at a local minimum of energy and is therefore not stable, in contrast to a true vacuum, which exists at a global minimum and is stable. A false vacuum may be very long-lived, or metastable.� - Wiki.

A major problem with this hypothesis is that for a vacuum to exist, regardless of whether it be a ‘true’, ‘false’ or ‘metastable false vacuum’, it must have dimensions, whether physical, as within this universe, or otherwise. Theories such as that usually referred to as the Big Bang, state that expansion from a point of infinite density created 4D space-time (despite lacking a source of energy which can overcome the inverse squared Law of gravity). This, supposedly, created the 3 spacial and 1 time dimension we experience as the physical or natural universe. For either a bubble nucleation or quantum fluctuation to occur within a vacuum causing the creation of the universe, the dimensions must already exist for a vacuum to exist. This would mean that the physical dimensions required for the existence of a vacuum must already exist so as to create the physical dimensions required. This is an oxymoron.

That just depends on which theory you are using. "In some forms of quantum cosmology, such probability sums are constructed, that start with true nothingness - not even space or time - and end with something like the early universe (as known in observational cosmology) or the universe today.

This is mathematically possible because of how space and time are described in modern theories of gravity." https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-and-time

An alternative would be that a vacuum existed within dimensions other than the 4D space-time of our physical or natural universe (as possibly suggested in String Theory) As science can only investigate things within our natural or physical universe, it cannot test, experiment, prove or disprove the existence of these extra dimensions. They are outside of or beyond science.

Now you are just confused. We can test for universes predicted by string theory https://www.sciencealert.com/the-parall ... -be-tested and we can also test for extra dimensions. https://home.cern/science/physics/extra ... lack-holes

These possible extra dimensions would be beyond the physical universe, therefore by definition, metaphysical and beyond the natural, being, again by definition, supernatural. This is the realm within which, I believe God exists

And Brahma and Allah and all the other thousands of gods obviously. Do you think they'll get along or do they get their own private dimensions? I bet if they manage to comb all those dimensions without finding any gods you will find somewhere else to put yours.

[Still small]

That just depends on which theory you are using. "In some forms of quantum cosmology, such probability sums are constructed, that start with true nothingness - not even space or time - and end with something like the early universe (as known in observational cosmology) or the universe today.

This is mathematically possible because of how space and time are described in modern theories of gravity." https://physics.stackexchange.com/quest ... e-and-time

The last paragraph of the linked article seems to sum it up - “Summing up ... If someone talks about the universe coming from a quantum vacuum before space and time, they are trying to make a conceptual theory about the meaning of their mathematical theory of the quantum universe. It's hard to be any more specific, because the details are often idiosyncratic. But in general, there's no guarantee that the conceptual theory makes logical sense, or that the mathematical theory has anything to do with the actual universe.� (Emphasis added)

Now you are just confused. We can test for universes predicted by string theory https://www.sciencealert.com/the-parall ... -be-tested

Once again, the last paragraph in the linked article appears to sum it up - “Whether we will ever be able to prove their existence is hard to predict. But given the massive implications of such a finding it should definitely be worth the search.�
One can assume the existence of something and hope to prove it via observations but until such observation is made, it is still hypocritical. Some may assume the existence of pink unicorns and hope to prove it by searching. Do you give that much credence? That’s not science, that’s speculation.

and we can also test for extra dimensions. https://home.cern/science/physics/extra ... lack-holes

Once again, comments in the linked article appears to sum it up -“One option would be to find evidence of particles that can exist only if extra dimensions are real. . . . . . this might suggest the presence of extra dimensions. . . . . If gravitons exist, it should be possible to create them at the LHC, but they would rapidly disappear into extra dimensions. . . . . We would need to carefully study the properties of the missing object to work out whether it is a graviton escaping to another dimension or something else.� (Emphasis added) This appears to be ‘science’ assuming the existence of extra dimensions to explain a phenomenon within our 4D space-time as opposed to observing the actual dimensions.

Some time ago, I communicated with Brian Greene regarding some aspects of String Theory. One suggestion I made was the possibility of quantum entanglement being the result of a single string intersecting our 4D space-time in two seperate locations, thus causing the ‘spooky action at a distance’. While he did not comment on my suggestion, I noted that a few months later, during a lecture, he ‘suggested’ the same possible solution. Hmmmm.

These possible extra dimensions would be beyond the physical universe, therefore by definition, metaphysical and beyond the natural, being, again by definition, supernatural. This is the realm within which, I believe God exists

And Brahma and Allah and all the other thousands of gods obviously. Do you think they'll get along or do they get their own private dimensions? I bet if they manage to comb all those dimensions without finding any gods you will find somewhere else to put yours.

Just because you don’t like an explanation, that doesn’t prove it to be wrong as you seem to imply by your ridicule. Nor does it disprove the possibility of extra dimensions beyond the reach of science.

Have a good day!
Still small

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 87 by Still small]

One can assume the existence of something and hope to prove it via observations but until such observation is made, it is still hypocritical. Some may assume the existence of pink unicorns and hope to prove it by searching. Do you give that much credence? That’s not science, that’s speculation.

I think you meant "hypothetical" there (correct me if I'm wrong), but doesn't this exact same line of reasoning apply to the existence of gods? Or are gods to be accepted based on some other criterium?

[Artie]

Once again, the last paragraph in the linked article appears to sum it up - “Whether we will ever be able to prove their existence is hard to predict. But given the massive implications of such a finding it should definitely be worth the search.�
One can assume the existence of something and hope to prove it via observations but until such observation is made, it is still hypocritical. Some may assume the existence of pink unicorns and hope to prove it by searching. Do you give that much credence? That’s not science, that’s speculation.

Some may assume the existence of a god. Do you give that much credence? That's speculation. Are you hypocritical?

These possible extra dimensions would be beyond the physical universe, therefore by definition, metaphysical and beyond the natural, being, again by definition, supernatural. This is the realm within which, I believe God exists

And Brahma and Allah and all the other thousands of gods obviously. Do you think they'll get along or do they get their own private dimensions? I bet if they manage to comb all those dimensions without finding any gods you will find somewhere else to put yours.

Just because you don’t like an explanation

That's not an explanation, that's just speculation. Remember?

that doesn’t prove it to be wrong as you seem to imply by your ridicule.

Ridicule? Why couldn't Allah and Brahma and Vishnu and all the other gods also have a place in your extra dimensions? Are you discriminating between gods and playing favorites?