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.
Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".
The authors specify that when they say "nothing" they are referring to no space, no matter, and no time.
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.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.
Is a quantum fluctuation something, or is a quantum fluctuation nothing?
Well you're both wrong, then. Proving that something could have happened is not the same as proving that something actually happened.Agreed. If someone claims they have "proof" that something "may" or "could" have happened, it isn't "proof".
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.
I'm just asking you.
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.
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.
Why should I have to explain it to you?
The very concept of a field in physics presupposes the existence of space.
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"."
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?