Is there evidence of something beyond nature?

[justlookinla]

What I am commenting on is Krauss' view of what "nothing" is.

"Krauss, however, adopts a much more restrictive definition of nothing. For Krauss, "nothing" is defined as the absence of particulate matter. It does not, however, rule out the existence of quantum fields."
Lawrence Krauss's Nothing is not Nothing

Spacetime is a quantum field.

Krauss redefined nothing as something.

 

[justlookinla]

I retracted my statement. Please provide evidence that space time existed prior to the Big Bang.

I doubt very seriously that's going to happen. He's in evasion mode.

 

[Loudmouth]

Evidence of a quantum field prior to the Big Bang.

That would be the evidence for inflation and the Big Bang, according to Krauss.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That would be the evidence for inflation and the Big Bang, according to Krauss.

Pretend I don't know what Krauss is suggesting and give me the core of the evidence of how the evidence for inflation which occurred in the Big Bang and the Big Bang itself is evidence for his nothing is something.

 

[Loudmouth]

Pretend I don't know what Krauss is suggesting and give me the core of the evidence of how the evidence for inflation which occurred in the Big Bang and the Big Bang itself is evidence for his nothing is something.

The core of the evidence is the evenness of the cosmic microwave background that is explained by the sudden expansion of spacetime. This has always been the strongest evidence for inflation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I doubt very seriously that's going to happen. He's in evasion mode.

I find it humorous that he is always pointing fingers at others and claiming that they won't provide evidence and here he is not providing evidence once again for his claims.

 

[Loudmouth]

I find it humorous that he is always pointing fingers at others and claiming that they won't provide evidence and here he is not providing evidence once again for his claims.

I just did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The core of the evidence is the evenness of the cosmic microwave background that is explained by the sudden expansion of spacetime. This has always been the strongest evidence for inflation.

Really? Please give the evidence that space time was present prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just did.

No you didn't.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you didn't.

"The core of the evidence is the evenness of the cosmic microwave background that is explained by the sudden expansion of spacetime. This has always been the strongest evidence for inflation. "

 

[Oncedeceived]

"The core of the evidence is the evenness of the cosmic microwave background that is explained by the sudden expansion of spacetime. This has always been the strongest evidence for inflation. "

Repeating a statement that has no evidence of spacetime being present prior to the Big Bang is not going to substantiate the claim. For a any quantum field theoretical vacuum state to exist there must be a quantum field. How would these fields exist and what evidence is there for them? It matters not what arrangement a field might take, it is an absence of fields at all.

 

[Dizredux]

Once you have said that fine tuning or appearance of fine tuning is the consensus opinion. I decided to check this out and here are some of the objections discussed in the Wiki article on the subject referring to the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life.

Disputes regarding the existence and extent of fine-tuning

Physicist Victor Stenger objects to the fine-tuning, and especially to theist use of fine-tuning arguments. His numerous criticisms include what he calls "the wholly unwarranted assumption that only carbon-based life is possible." In turn, the astrophysicist Luke Barnes has criticised much of Stenger's work.

Fred Adams has investigated the structure of stars in universes with different values of the gravitational constant G, the fine-structure constant (symbol), and a nuclear reaction rate parameter C. His study suggests that roughly 25% of this parameter space allows stars to exist.

The validity of fine tuning examples is sometimes questioned on the grounds that such reasoning is subjective anthropomorphism applied to natural physical constants. Critics also suggest that the fine-tuned Universe assertion and the anthropic principle are essentially tautologies.

The fine-tuned Universe argument has also been criticized as an argument by lack of imagination, as it assumes no other forms of life, sometimes referred to as carbon chauvinism. Conceptually, alternative biochemistry or other forms of life are possible. Regarding this, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."

In addition, critics argue that humans are adapted to the Universe through the process of evolution, rather than the Universe being adapted to humans (see puddle thinking, below). They also see it as an example of the logical flaw of hubris or anthropocentrism in its assertion that humans are the purpose of the Universe.

So it does not appear that it is the consensus opinion that the Universe is fine tuned for life but is the opinion of some but not others which is what I understood to be the case.

I tend to follow the idea that suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life. (Description taken from the Wiki article).

Also I tend to agree with

The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."

It didn't take much research to find this, I just Googled "fine tuned universe" and that was all it took. It is a good idea to always check out objections to any idea first. If one just looks at supporting sources, a major source of error is introduced.

Cite: Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It appears to be a well done inclusive article. I would hope you have already read this but just in case.

Dizredux

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once you have said that fine tuning or appearance of fine tuning is the consensus opinion. I decided to check this out and here are some of the objections discussed in the Wiki article on the subject referring to the idea that the universe is fine tuned for life.

So it does not appear that it is the consensus opinion that the Universe is fine tuned for life but is the opinion of some but not others which is what I understood to be the case.

I tend to follow the idea that suggests that if the Universe were designed to be fine-tuned for life, it should be the best one possible and that evidence suggests that it is not. In fact, most of the Universe is highly hostile to life. (Description taken from the Wiki article).

Also I tend to agree with It didn't take much research to find this, I just Googled "fine tuned universe" and that was all it took. It is a good idea to always check out objections to any idea first. If one just looks at supporting sources, a major source of error is introduced.

Cite: Fine-tuned Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It appears to be a well done inclusive article. I would hope you have already read this but just in case.

Dizredux

Thanks for you opinion Diz. I have of course said that most feel it is fine tuned and that does mean that there are those that do not agree.

And yes, I've read it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Repeating a statement that has no evidence of spacetime being present prior to the Big Bang is not going to substantiate the claim.

I just gave you the core of the evidence, the isotropy of the the CMB.

For a any quantum field theoretical vacuum state to exist there must be a quantum field. How would these fields exist and what evidence is there for them?

The evidence is the isotropy of the CMB which evidences interaction of energy prior to the initial inflation of the universe. It is analogous to water in your bathtub. When you first pour the bath the water is hot. If you go away and come back the next day the water in the bathtub is the same temperature as the bathroom. That is because there was time for the water to interact with the rest of the bathroom and reach equilibrium. The same for our universe. The temperature is nearly the same across the early universe which is evidence for interaction prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just gave you the core of the evidence, the isotropy of the the CMB.



The evidence is the isotropy of the CMB which evidences interaction of energy prior to the initial inflation of the universe. It is analogous to water in your bathtub. When you first pour the bath the water is hot. If you go away and come back the next day the water in the bathtub is the same temperature as the bathroom. That is because there was time for the water to interact with the rest of the bathroom and reach equilibrium. The same for our universe. The temperature is nearly the same across the early universe which is evidence for interaction prior to the Big Bang.

Explain how the temperature being nearly the same across the early universe evidence for interaction prior to the Big Bang. Evidence please.

 

[Loudmouth]

Explain how the temperature being nearly the same across the early universe evidence for interaction prior to the Big Bang.

I just did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I just did.

No you didn't. You made the claim that the temperatures being the same across the universe provides evidence for interactions prior to the Big Bang. You have not done that. You have also not given evidence for the "something" that might have interacted.

 

[Loudmouth]

No you didn't. You made the claim that the temperatures being the same across the universe provides evidence for interactions prior to the Big Bang. You have not done that.

Please explain why that is not evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please explain why that is not evidence.

1. It has been well documented that the earliest evidence in our universe shows that there was no matter, no space, no time and no energy and more importantly no laws of physics.

2. The CMB provides strong evidence for inflation and the Big Bang Theory but has no predictable hypothesis of interaction with something else.

3. Have you shown there is no other reasonable explanation for the temperature being the same across the universe?

 

[Loudmouth]

1. It has been well documented that the earliest evidence in our universe shows that there was no matter, no space, no time and no energy and more importantly no laws of physics.

Please describe this evidence.