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?

[William]

Artie: The amount of energy in the universe is zero. Nothing. The universe is just nothing expressed as matter (+1) and gravity (-1) like 1-1 is a different way of expressing zero. Nothing. You don't go from nothing to something just by expressing nothing as 1-1. You don't create something from nothing, you just express nothing as 1-1. You still got zero. Nothing.

William: In order for your nothing not to be something, you have to include something called 'energy' but 'which doesn't exist'.
You have to have this non-existent thing you claim is 'Energy' to somehow have to exist...somewhere else, obviously...
With this Energy not existing in our universe, you cannot have the equation you are using, because it is based on the absence of something called 'Energy' which has to reside elsewhere. Like the 'God of The Gaps".

Thus, your equation does more to support the theory that 'somewhere else' exists, which naturally opens the portal in our understanding that this universe was the creation of another universe - one which has this 'absent from our universe' Energy.

[Artie]

William: In order for your nothing not to be something, you have to include something called 'energy' but 'which doesn't exist'.

The universe has no energy. Zero energy. It's just expressed as matter (+1) and gravitation (-1). Just as you can express zero as 1-1. It doesn't mean that 1-1 came from nothing and became "1-1" or "something". It just means that 1-1 is one way of expressing zero, nothing, and the universe including matter and gravitation is just another way of expressing zero, nothing.

[William]

[Replying to post 72 by Artie]

Artie: The universe has no energy.

William: Define "Energy" for me, if you would Artie.

[Still small]

We have a fluctuation ending up with positive energy in the form of matter and negative energy in the form of gravity and together they equal zero and thus can last indefinitely. Your sentence "if we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which resulted in the entire mass of the universe, it’s length of existence would be ‘zip’." should read: "If we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which resulted in the entire mass of the universe AND GRAVITY, it's length of existence could be indefinite."

You appear to be equating positive energy and negative energy with a virtual particle and a virtual antiparticle. This is not the case. While positive mass (matter/energy) plus the equivalent amount of negative mass (matter/energy) may balance out, it is not the same as a virtual particle and virtual antiparticle as specified in quantum physics. While positive and negative mass (matter/energy) may balance each other overall, they still exist. When a virtual particle and a virtual antiparticle produced by a quantum fluctuation recombine, they annihilate each other, ceasing to exist. And again, the length time of existence between the fluctuation and annihilation is inversely proportional to the mass of the virtual particles/antiparticle. Therefore, if we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which consisted of the entire mass of the universe as a virtual particle plus the equivalent antiparticle, it’s length of existence would be ‘zip’.

Have a good day!
Still small

[Artie]

We have a fluctuation ending up with positive energy in the form of matter and negative energy in the form of gravity and together they equal zero and thus can last indefinitely. Your sentence "if we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which resulted in the entire mass of the universe, it’s length of existence would be ‘zip’." should read: "If we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which resulted in the entire mass of the universe AND GRAVITY, it's length of existence could be indefinite."

You appear to be equating positive energy and negative energy with a virtual particle and a virtual antiparticle. This is not the case. While positive mass (matter/energy) plus the equivalent amount of negative mass (matter/energy) may balance out, it is not the same as a virtual particle and virtual antiparticle as specified in quantum physics. While positive and negative mass (matter/energy) may balance each other overall, they still exist. When a virtual particle and a virtual antiparticle produced by a quantum fluctuation recombine, they annihilate each other, ceasing to exist. And again, the length time of existence between the fluctuation and annihilation is inversely proportional to the mass of the virtual particles/antiparticle. Therefore, if we have a fluctuation which produced the initial singularity which consisted of the entire mass of the universe as a virtual particle plus the equivalent antiparticle, it’s length of existence would be ‘zip’.

Have a good day!
Still small

Here is from inflation for beginners:
"Quantum uncertainty allows the temporary creation of bubbles of energy, or pairs of particles (such as electron-positron pairs) out of nothing, provided that they disappear in a short time. The less energy is involved, the longer the bubble can exist. Curiously, the energy in a gravitational field is negative, while the energy locked up in matter is positive. If the Universe is exactly flat , then as Tryon pointed out the two numbers cancel out, and the overall energy of the Universe is precisely zero. In that case, the quantum rules allow it to last forever."
http://aether.lbl.gov/www/science/infla ... nners.html

[mgb]

William:Nothing would not "consist" of something.
"The Universe" is "something".

No it isn't anymore than the number 1 in 1-1=0 is "something". 1-1 is still nothing.

Saying that the Universe does not exist because 'something' and 'nothing' cancel each other out...is oxymoron.

LOL never said that. The amount of energy in the universe is zero. Nothing. The universe is just nothing expressed as matter (+1) and gravity (-1) like 1-1 is a different way of expressing zero. Nothing. You don't go from nothing to something just by expressing nothing as 1-1. You don't create something from nothing, you just express nothing as 1-1. You still got zero. Nothing.

But that may only be the situation in time. The universe began in eternity with a positive amount of energy. Hence the big bang.

[Artie]

[Replying to post 72 by Artie]

Artie: The universe has no energy.

William: Define "Energy" for me, if you would Artie.

Difficult. Here's the best we can do. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/what-is-energy

[William]

Artie: The universe has no energy.

William: Define "Energy" for me, if you would Artie.

Artie: Difficult.

William: Which is more difficult to define...
(a) Energy
(b) A Creator GOD
?

Artie: Here's the best we can do.


William: Thanks.
Both a Creator GOD and Energy have "the capacity to do work."
Both are also;
Abstract Notions
Not Physical Essences

Artie: For energy, the best we can do is say it’s the capacity to cause movement.

William: And so that is also the description of a Creator GOD.

Except of course, the idea of a Creator GOD comes with it the idea that behind the movement caused by the Energy, the movement is purposeful and intelligent, rather than accidental and mindless.

Therefore, in part, The existence of Energy coming from somewhere, explains a Creator GOD. It is the reflection of the GOD, to which Physics understand exists, even while it cannot easily say what Energy is. They acknowledge it exists.

The difference in interpretation of this, is that Theists recognize intelligence in said 'energy' whereas non-theists would rather not.

Important to acknowledge here, is that physics cannot say for sure whether the 'energy' is alive or not.

Theist's generally agree that on the fact that life presented itself through the movement of 'energy', the source must therefore be Life/Alive/Intelligent/Purposeful/...and in that, not easily understood...especially from a position near the birth of it re the Big Bang...

[Artie]

Artie: The universe has no energy.

William: Define "Energy" for me, if you would Artie.

Artie: Difficult.

William: Which is more difficult to define...
(a) Energy
(b) A Creator GOD
?

Artie: Here's the best we can do.


William: Thanks.
Both a Creator GOD and Energy have "the capacity to do work."
Both are also;
Abstract Notions
Not Physical Essences

Artie: For energy, the best we can do is say it’s the capacity to cause movement.

William: And so that is also the description of a Creator GOD.

Except of course, the idea of a Creator GOD comes with it the idea that behind the movement caused by the Energy, the movement is purposeful and intelligent, rather than accidental and mindless.

Therefore, in part, The existence of Energy coming from somewhere, explains a Creator GOD. It is the reflection of the GOD, to which Physics understand exists, even while it cannot easily say what Energy is. They acknowledge it exists.

Except of course that 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]

Artie: The universe has no energy.

William: Define "Energy" for me, if you would Artie.

Artie: Difficult.

William: Which is more difficult to define...
(a) Energy
(b) A Creator GOD
?

Artie: Here's the best we can do.


William: Thanks.
Both a Creator GOD and Energy have "the capacity to do work."
Both are also;
Abstract Notions
Not Physical Essences

Artie: For energy, the best we can do is say it’s the capacity to cause movement.

William: And so that is also the description of a Creator GOD.

Except of course, the idea of a Creator GOD comes with it the idea that behind the movement caused by the Energy, the movement is purposeful and intelligent, rather than accidental and mindless.

Therefore, in part, The existence of Energy coming from somewhere, explains a Creator GOD. It is the reflection of the GOD, to which Physics understand exists, even while it cannot easily say what Energy is. They acknowledge it exists.

The difference in interpretation of this, is that Theists recognize intelligence in said 'energy' whereas non-theists would rather not.

Important to acknowledge here, is that physics cannot say for sure whether the 'energy' is alive or not.

Theist's generally agree that on the fact that life presented itself through the movement of 'energy', the source must therefore be Life/Alive/Intelligent/Purposeful/...and in that, not easily understood...especially from a position near the birth of it re the Big Bang...

Artie: Except of course that 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?