A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

[Kylie]

Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".

I don't think they are saying that this is definitely what happened, but rather that there's nothing to say that this couldn't have happened.

 

[zippy2006]

The authors specify that when they say "nothing" they are referring to no space, no matter, and no time.

Is a quantum fluctuation something, or is a quantum fluctuation nothing?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

The authors specify that when they say "nothing" they are referring to no space, no matter, and no time.



One option, but that doesn't mean that it's the only conclusion, or even a likely one.



Unfortunately, you've made a mistake.

According to 1 Timothy 6:10, it is not money that is the root of all evil, but the LOVE of money that is the root of all evil. As such, your conclusion is incorrect.

Oh, so that make sense. In order to "prove" that the universe came from nothing, they had to redefine the word "nothing". Based on their definition, God could be called "nothing". Thus, God could have created the universe. Second, the equation I presented was a joke.

 

[Kylie]

Is a quantum fluctuation something, or is a quantum fluctuation nothing?

Are you using the same definition of "nothing" that the authors specified?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".

Well you're both wrong, then. Proving that something could have happened is not the same as proving that something actually happened.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, so that make sense. In order to "prove" that the universe came from nothing, they had to redefine the word "nothing".

Most people would say it's a pretty good definition.

Based on their definition, God could be called "nothing". Thus, God could have created the universe.

True, but God doesn't have the math.

Second, the equation I presented was a joke.

I know.

 

[zippy2006]

Are you using the same definition of "nothing" that the authors specified?

I'm just asking you.

 

[Kylie]

I'm just asking you.

And for any answer to be useful, we have to make sure we mean the same thing when we use the term "nothing". In any case, my understanding of what a quantum vacuum fluctuation is can't be relied on, since I have no actual education in quantum mechanics. You'd be better off going with the opinions of experts, such as the authors of the paper.

 

[Radagast]

In any case, my understanding of what a quantum vacuum fluctuation is can't be relied on, since I have no actual education in quantum mechanics.

Possibly you shouldn't be pushing so hard for your interpretation of the paper then.

 

[Kylie]

Possibly you shouldn't be pushing so hard for your interpretation of the paper then.

Well, the way I see it, my understanding may be sorely lacking, but the authors' understanding is much better than mine. So I figure that going with their interpretation is the best idea, until someone else with an expert level understanding of the subject comes to give their opinion.

 

[zippy2006]

And for any answer to be useful, we have to make sure we mean the same thing when we use the term "nothing". In any case, my understanding of what a quantum vacuum fluctuation is can't be relied on, since I have no actual education in quantum mechanics. You'd be better off going with the opinions of experts, such as the authors of the paper.

Actually I think we all know what we mean by 'nothing.' If we just admit the obvious the sophistry evaporates.

 

[Sanoy]

In my opinion, nothing should mean nothing, not something else.

 

[Justaman0000]

Yep, nope. A quantum field is still something. And even a true vacuum require a global minumum of energy. Obviously, some people's idea of "nothing" is not really nothing, especially regarding quantum theory. Nothing, in theory, could mean that a very minute amount of energy (unmeasurably small) turned into more energy due. This whole theory is filled with special case scenarios that are impossible to be observed or tested which only makes it a theory mathamatically speaking. So in terms of physical science, it is still really only a hypothesis. There are many mathamatical theories out there that work on paper but are not true in the physical universe.

 

[Kylie]

Actually I think we all know what we mean by 'nothing.' If we just admit the obvious the sophistry evaporates.

Let's not make assumptions. You tell me what you mean, and then we can be sure about it.

 

[Speedwell]

There's no such thing as nothing.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually I think we all know what we mean by 'nothing.' If we just admit the obvious the sophistry evaporates.

So, you posit that when it comes to defining "nothing", there is nothing to it.

 

[lesliedellow]

Why should I have to explain it to you?

The very concept of a field in physics presupposes the existence of space.

 

[Kylie]

The very concept of a field in physics presupposes the existence of space.

What qualifications do you have in this field?

 

[Yttrium]

What qualifications do you have in this field?

His qualification in the field of fields? A qualification isn't really necessary for his statement. It's basically part of the definition of fields in physics.

You could take a look at this:

Field (physics) - Wikipedia

"In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum"."

 

[Kylie]

His qualification in the field of fields? A qualification isn't really necessary for his statement. It's basically part of the definition of fields in physics.

You could take a look at this:

Field (physics) - Wikipedia

"In the modern framework of the quantum theory of fields, even without referring to a test particle, a field occupies space, contains energy, and its presence precludes a classical "true vacuum"."

I find it hard to believe that the authors of this paper made such a fundamental error. I think it's far more likely that they know something about this that we don't.