“Nothing” is more unstable than something because “nothing” is thoroughly symmetrical. Also, wave functions that represent the state of the universe in the nonphysical and physical regions can be used to calculate the relative probabilities of finding a universe among similar universes. A universe is about twice as likely to be found in the physical mix (Quantum Gods page 251).
In Quantum Gods, Stenger describes the Hartle-Hawking model as one in which our universe is produced (before inflation & expansion occurred) from a prior existing universe after it quantum tunneled through the barrier region of unphysical chaos. He claims to have demonstrably worked out a rigorous mathematical support of a somewhat simplified version of that model using the skill level of a university senior majoring in physics or math. Details are in The Comprehensible Cosmos and his article in the online journal Philo. Vilenkin’s model uses the same scheme except there is no prior universe (since ours could have arisen from a waveform equivalent to a particle having half of the Planck mass). Either way, causeless creation from nothing is touted as a natural process that doesn’t require anything supernatural. He does concede that the explanations offered are just possibilities that may not be the correct ones but are consistent with accepted knowledge and do not violate any physical laws. To further complicate matters, another scenario involves the concept of two arrows of time going in opposite directions. There will then be two universes tunneling out of the barrier. Each will have “a beginning!” (page 247) [apparently contradicting the 1983 Hartle-Hawking model of a no-boundary origin of our universe having no beginning or end of time (page 246)]. However, the aforesaid prior universe was deflating (page 247) before it entered the barrier region. The overall scenario is then comparable to that conceived by Itzak Bentoff (whose specialty was medical inventions) i.e. a half white hole/half black hole dynamic feature in the center of the cosmic egg!
I think you still need to separate your thoughts on science from your thoughts on religion. QM, the science of Hawking, the science of Einsteing, etc., does not address religion. And, whether truth "sells" is not an argument to change what is observed, obviously You haven't found any "anti-religious" sentiment in that post. At worst (and I hope this isn't the case) you have a religious view of how something in this universe "SHOULD" work, and don't like that science found another explanation that doesn't require a god. Nobody can expect science to throw out its observations for the reason that one of the thousands of religious variations doesn't like it.
I don't see any need to ponder any such separation. These fields are wide open for further inquiry. Anti-God overlaps with anti-religious. Your hope is correct, it isn't the case. The efforts taken by various sides to explain and justify their analytical positions are interesting and informative.
So it seems, but the eggheads are experts at manipulating precise standards of nothingness. When they say what the square root of minus one is, I hear them but don't necessarily understand or agree with them.
AFAIK, they don't. They just label it "i" and use it as it suits them. That aside, it hardly makes sense in this context to liken any mathematical abstraction to a "nothing" from which a material universe allegedly emerged.
Yes, they are wide open. BUT, the point is that mixing religion and science is ALWAYS a failure. The two have different fundamental assumptions and different methods of moving forward. Mixing these methods and assumptions can not possibly result in anything that is sensible, certainly from the point of view of science. Absolutely. However, perhaps you were thinking of those who attack religion in general by attempting to "disprove" god, or whatever. I don't approve of that, as science has no way of adressing the supernatural. We do need a healthy respect for and understanding of science. Part of that is understanding that science doesn't address the supernaural, and that science allows no theoris that haven't gone through significant testing (including independent testing) and review, and that if errors are found in a proposed theory that theroy is removed. Yes, it is!
Very pertinent.. you completely illustrate the post you quoted: it quantum tunneled through the barrier region of unphysical chaos.. Really? Unphysical chaos? Quantum tunneling? causeless creation from nothing is touted as a natural process Of course! And can we demonstrate, observe, or even DEFINE this 'natural process?' Something comes from nothing all the time, in a godless universe.. consistent with accepted knowledge and do not violate any physical laws. Only imaginary 'knowledge ', and only imaginary laws that can create something from nothing. This is all pseudoscience babble.. new age ramblings with mystical, ethereal powers at work.. as long as you don't call them a God! All these 'models' and theories are speculative.. and proving them with statistical calculations is one of the greatest illusions of pseudoscience that there is. Repeatable, observable, testable.. that is science, not speculative mumbo jumbo filled with empty techno babble jargon. That is just ear tickling deception, with no empirical substance
There's not much to ponder with your questions. 1, we don't know 2, I suppose nothing 3, the universe is estimated to be 14 billion years old therefore like from five million Miles away would have had plenty of time to get here. DC rice that the universe is at least 14 billion years old because of the expanse of it. It could turn out to be older. As far as what caused the quantum singularity, I think scientists theorize gravity. Gravity is the force that bends space-time. I think faith is the wrong word here. You need faith in the science as much as you need faith in the idea that the water you pour out of your faucet won't poison you. It's a long way between that sort of trust or faith to the idea that a supreme omnipotent being knows you personally. Well the theory is gravity. as matter becomes more dense gravity increases which makes matter more dense to the point that all of matter is condensed in a single particle. Gravity so it may not be completely understood we have a grasp on it. As far as the unknown, that is what is the impetus for the release of matter. It could be electromotive force that just overcomes the gravity. I'm not sure, I'm not an astrophysicist. As far as what's more reasonable, the idea that gravity can crush matter down into a quantum singularity is more reasonable. We see this sort of reaction occurring in Black holes. As far as the Creator we are completely blind. That's why the leap of faith is so great and so important within these religions. I frankly wouldn't want it any other way. The idea that there is a God and that he knows who you are seems to be much more powerful as a faith without a reasonable explanation. It provides the world with more Wonder, more frontier.
Itzhak Bentov, back in 1977, did not claim to have arrived at his conception of the cosmic egg using scientific calculations or QM. You can question the idea of unphysical chaos since it is rather counterintuitive, but QM activities (entanglement, tunneling, and superposition) are here to stay. "Nothing" can be thought of as the opposite of something. If you have debts but no money, you have a negative balance of cash. Getting that good a handle on it is not so simple because matter and antimatter annihilate, but science has been able to do a limited amount of manipulation of these opposites. Creation from nothing is relevant to the birth stage of a universe, which can't be arranged for witnessing. Despite Nobel Prize winners such as Einstein and other geniuses regarding it as a natural process, skepticism is understandable but is not necessarily a crushing weight against it. They don't use any imaginary laws. They have mathematical formulations to back up some pivotal claims and scenarios. Whether or not the particular mathematics has been realized and warrants certainty is something most of us cannot pass proper judgement on. The kind of science that you respect is the established everyday science of the macroworld. Advanced physics is a different animal.
Yes, those seem to be the obvious answers to the questions. But you don't seem to follow those answers, in your subsequent responses.. ..or younger.. IOW, we don't know. We can speculate, and construct a hypothetical model. But that is not proof, or especially, 'settled science!' So it is believed, by some, with no evidence. Gravity bends space-time? How? Why? What observable mechanism does this fantastic imagination? Faith is the exact word, and it applies equally to one who posits an unknown intelligent Designer, or unknown natural process that allegedly did the same thing. Remember point #2 of your reply? ..more beliefs.. unevidenced conjecture, not observable, testable science. Your speculations have no more credibility than positing aliens or a Supreme Being. Matter becomes more dense? Human beings do this, but not matter. That is a fantastic conjecture. 'Gravity can crush matter down to a quantum singularity? ' Really? You have observed this natural phenomenon? This is just philosophical conjecture.. a religious belief, shrouded in techno babble. The same leap of faith.. no, a bigger one.. is needed to believe in atheistic naturalism. It flies in the face of the consensus of human knowledge for thousands of years. It is a pseudoscience religious belief, not observable, repeatable science.
LOL This has been proven through many different experiments - it was first proven nearly 100 years ago when observing a solar eclipse - the experiment proved Einstein's prediction made years before the eclipse that came out of his theory!. Even the signal that your mobile phone is corrected for the space/time curve. GPS doesn't work if this correction is not carried out. You are delusional in your belief
1. Radio waves, light waves, and other spectrums are 'bent' by gravity. 'Spacetime!' is a conjecture.. an imaginary theory. We cannot measure or observe space or time being 'bent' by gravity. That is a belief. 2. Ad hominem is not a scientific rebuttal. 3. The phenomenon of gravity and its effects on spectral waves does not prove matter can be crushed to a singularity, nor that it 'causes' matter to become 'more dense'. The only ones becoming more dense are gullible indoctrinees who abandon reason and critical thinking for a religious fantasy.
Which bit of "it was first proven nearly 100 years ago when observing a solar eclipse" do you not understand? I presume you know that the phrase "spacetime" is used to describe this event?
This last paragrah is precisely the claim that "god did it" is identical to "I don't know". There is no possibility of agreeing with that. Not knowing an answer is gigantically different than saying that an all powerful indetectable supernatural being did it. And, the fact that science would look for an answer in the observable universe (while "god did it" is the end of exploration) doesn't change that in any way.
well it's probably not younger. But you're right it's not proof it is theoretical. But lots of things you take for granted in your everyday life are theoretical. first the planets orbit the sun and they don't crash into it. How does orbit work without propulsion? What moves things like the moon or satellites? How do they stay in space? No it doesn't natural processes can be proven to exist, some natural processes were unknown previously now they are discovered. We have never discovered anything like a Devine creator. first they are not my speculations, I am not an astrophysicist. They are theories based on the laws of physics. and again the idea that gravity bends space-time explains how the planets move around the sun without any propulsion. no it actually isn't. We can look at atomic bonds in a metallic substance such as lead and see that it is more dense then the atomic bonds in something like lucite. The density of such objects with change in different gravity. For insurance the videos of the astronauts on the moon. Their volume didn't change but their weight was reduced. So we know for a fact gravity has this effect on matter. It's just a question of how great it can be. ' it's just a matter of how much gravity. Gravity is a property of mass. So the more mass you have like the Earth, the more gravity you have. The less Mass you have like the Moon the less gravity. Do you believe in gravity? so it's a bigger leap of faith to believe in gravity? Well consensus isn't knowledge or science it's just people agreeing on something. The western hemisphere flew in the face of human knowledge and consensus until someone explored and discovered it. No it's based on physics. Unless you're suggesting gravity doesn't exist. Or the properties we understand aren't the real properties.
My point about separation is just that mixing the methods of science and religion is sure to lead to nonsense. They have different fundamental assumptions, different ideas about evidence, different ideas about testing, etc. I'm not sure where you are getting the "anti-god" part. Science isn't anti-god. Science can not address the supernatural, so there isn't any way for it to be anti-god. Science can find answers that are different from the answers found by religious methods. Galileo, Darwin and others have done so. That isn't a result of being anti-god. Amen on your last paragraph.
yes actually we can. It's called orbit. There reason the Earth moves in it's orbit rather than just being flung off into space is the effect of the sun's gravity. There are no engines driving the Earth yet it orbits. How else would you make an objects trajectory curve? To reject the ability of gravity to bend space time, you must also reject the theories regarding motion specifically if I push an object I can't predict where it's going to go based on the variables. So what causes celestial objects over a certain mass to become spheroids in shape? If it's not gravity crushing them into a spheroid why don't we see cubic planets or objects with planetary mass that are amorphous in shape?
Of course it does. That is the message of the bully pulpit of atheistic naturalism, and the phony narrative, 'Atheists have science! A Creator is religion!' But both scientific facts, AND belief intermingle in these deeply felt opinions. The ANTI-SCIENCE true believers just use moving goal posts and shifting definitions to make a religion out of 'science!' It isn't really, because science is a methodology, but the bully pulpiteers pretend that only a belief in atheistic naturalism is science. Of course.. it is not even subtle, anymore. The jihadists attack their ideological enemies with false narratives and phony caricatures. This is imagination.. science fiction, not something observable and repeatable. So, what is the difference between positing a mysterious, unknown, untestable Creator, over mysterious, unknown, untestable godless processes, that allegedly did the same thing? Why is speculating atheistic naturalism, 'science!', but a Creator, 'religion?' It is religious bigotry, pretending one religio/philosophical belief is 'settled science!', while a competing one is 'religious!', and using the power of the State to mandate the belief. What natural processes can Create the universe ex nihilo? This is just a religious belief, masquerading as 'Science!' .. .. .... Exactly. Pseudoscience is a religious belief, not empirical science. But 'not knowing!' is not the claim.. 'Billions of years!' Big bang! Common ancestry! Settled science! ..until all the deluded indoctrinees nod like bobbleheads and fall dutifully in line. No questioning the State Mandates. No critical thinking allowed. No contrary possibilities or competing theories allowed.. just the Official State Decrees, and all the gullible indoctrinees submit to their religious Indoctrination. Really? Orbits? You think there are no physical laws regarding orbits, centrifugal force, gravity, and motion? You think atheistic naturalism did that? Or are you just equivocating? ..nor have we discovered an atheistic naturalism 'proof!' of origins. They are religio/philosophical opinions. No, most of the scifi techno babble is based only on conjecture and imagination. Right.. Gravity, therefore big bang! Gravity, therefore common ancestry! Gravity, therefore billions of years! Equivocation. Moving goal posts, much? ..imaginary physics, that posits 'black holes! inflation!, something from nothing! abiogenesis! particle sized compression of the universe! common ancestry! You can't appeal to 'gravity!' to evidence all your beliefs in imaginary theories.. Still bending space time? I can easily question AND scrutinize some hare brained 'theory!', without having to abandon the rest of scientific methodology. I can throw out the bathwater, and keep the baby.. Real science can differentiate between hypothetical speculation, and observable, repeatable reality. The pseudoscience elites, and their bobbleheaded indoctrinees, cannot.
Why don't you admit that you have no idea what is meant by the phrase bending spacetime? It's clear that you think it is the same as bending a spoon
1. Who or What initiated this big bang, compressing the universe into a small size, then exploding it into the universe? We do not know and freely admit it, that does not diminish the theory. 2. What is the difference between a 'big bang', and a Creation event from a Creator? The Creator and accompanying data. 3. How does light appear to us, which would take 'millions of years!' to get to us from the far reaches of the universe? I must assume you are joking in order to maintain minimal respect for your intellect......but the answer is TIME.
