Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Seems to me that this is talking about the space that was created by the quantum fluctuations, not a space in which quantum fluctuations occur.
And how did the "parent" universe begin?
"Quantum fluctuations" have to occur in something.
Exactly. That parent universe may yet exist within another bigger Universe.
Given that the authors specifically stated that they are working without space, time, or matter, I'm going to have to ask you to provide support for that claim.
Tell you what: you can explain to me how fluctuations can occur in a quantum field without a quantum field existing.
Why should I have to explain it to you? You've made claims and been totally unable to back any of them up.
I have done.
That's exactly multiverse theory: that there's an infinite chain (or tree) of individual universes.
But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.
Nothing's real?
Oh, well. Creation ex nihilo was never an essential Christian doctrine, anyway, so there would be no serious theological implications.That's exactly multiverse theory: that there's an infinite chain (or tree) of individual universes.
But then the whole thing would be an eternally existing physical structure, with all the philosophical implications of that.
I understand the appeal of thinking this way, but I do not think this claim is really that solid. You have earlier claimed, if I recall correctly, that these fluctuations must occur "in space". I see no grounds for drawing this connection. Take time, for example. It is very easy to think that time exists and "flows" even if there is no space. Now, I am not suggesting that time can necessarily exist without space (even though I think most people would believe this, at least up until the theory of relativity)."Quantum fluctuations" have to occur in something.
Dropping this here for interest...
A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing
And the actual paper: Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing
(Here's a PDF version: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf )
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.
When this happens, there are two possibilities. If this bubble of space does not expand rapidly, it disappears again almost instantly. But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.
The question is: does the Wheeler-DeWitt equation allow this? “We prove that once a small true vacuum bubble is created, it has the chance to expand exponentially,” say Dongshan and co.
Seems to fit the possibility that God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Which the Bible suggests.If you have a look at the actual paper, which I linked to in the opening post, the authors clarify:
"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, and the problem of singularity can be avoided naturally."
Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".From the link:
These guys have come up with the first rigorous proof that the Big Bang could indeed have occurred spontaneously because of quantum fluctuations.
Personally, I think "proof" and "could have" should not cohabitate in a sentence.
A fluctuation in the actions of subatomic particles could, in fact, create something from nothingness if you are so desperate for a process that you'll latch on to anything that seems plausible in relation to what you have chosen to believe.
It could happen, I guys. Why, just last week I went into my previously empty garage and a Porsche had materialized from quantum particles bringing forth something from nothingness. Of curse, the Porsche had one small disadvantage; it was on an entirely different plane of existence. So while I knew it was there, I couldn't see it, touch it or drive it. It remains there, nonetheless, in the infinity of mathematical improbabilities.
We call this a "lettuce sandwich." Here's the history behind that. A man goes to his neighbor and asks to borrow his lawnmower., His neighbor says, "It's not possible. I'm eating a lettuce sandwich." The man asks what that has to do with anything. The neighbor answers, if I don't want to loan my mower, any reason is as good as any other."
The unbelievers will latch on to this because, frankly, if you want to disbelieve the Bible one excuse is as good as another.
I have a mathematical equation that "proves" women are evil.I asked you if you could point out where exactly they made their mistake. As in, you actually point out the specific point where they made their mistake, not some vague claim.
I hate to break the news to everyone, but after reading the article, it doesn't prove that "The Universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing". It claims that the Universe may have formed from a "Vacuum bubble" created by a "metastable false vacuum". That is not the Universe being formed "spontaneously from nothing".
Seems to fit the possibility that God is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial. Which the Bible suggests.
I have a mathematical equation that "proves" women are evil.
Women = Time X Money
Because Time is money, Time = Money
Money = View attachment 258592
Thus, Women = View attachment 258593 X View attachment 258594
Thus, Women = View attachment 258595 squared
The root cancels out the square.
Thus, women = Evil.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?