Science claims universe came from nothing at all!

[Subduction Zone]

Actually, Noah's ark is history. Legend now to many cultures, like so many true events.

No, Noah's Ark is myth. You seem to have a very poor concept of "history".

Thank you for making this personal. Try again.
Answer the post. Don't correct me or tell me how much you think I don't know.

Correcting you is part of the answer. You make it personal and then complain when others continue in the same vein.

 

[Doveaman]

I have a pretty good understanding of your God.

If you understood my God you would not be an atheist. Impossible.

I wish the science deniers would try to improve their understanding of the sciences.

According to you, the universe popped into existence from somewhere not currently understood.

The Church has been preaching that science for thousands of years now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you understood my God you would not be an atheist. Impossible.

Not if your god does not exist. And the evidence is running in my favor.

According to you, the universe popped into existence from somewhere not currently understood.

The Church has been preaching that science for thousands of years now.

No, the "Church" has been preaching magic for thousands of years. Big difference.

 

[lesliedellow]

If you understood my God you would not be an atheist. Impossible.
According to you, the universe popped into existence from somewhere not currently understood.

The Church has been preaching that science for thousands of years now.

The Church has been preaching that theology for thousands of years.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What I have seen you express as supposed flaws were simply a flawed understanding. Every time.

dad, you know that is not true. You were never able to show that I had a flaw in my understanding. In fact it has been the other way around. You are the one that can't understand your own Bible.



But I will be more than happy to go over any of your errors again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The universe popping out of nothing, is a science claim you failed to discuss intelligently. Now we are supposed to be diverted into some twilight zone of worthless doubts about God, or Scripture? You must be kidding.

dad, you ran away from the discussion. You can't complain when running away is your favorite activity.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You've got plenty of nothing, but nothings not plenty for me.

Your constant running away from the issue tells us that even you don't believe this.

Try again dad. All you need to do is to promise to try to be honest and to try to learn. Or you could run away for a few more "miles" again.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Explain how science losing track of some particles that come or go..appear or disappear to their sight mean the universe appeared from Nothing? So far all you say is that we peasants are too low and dumb to be able to get it. I think it is obvious you simply have no clue, and cannot debate the issue, explain it, or comprehend what you are talking about.

Sorry dad, but if you ask dishonest questions you lose. You have an incorrect assumption in your question.

Try again.

But I can see that you were wise for avoiding to promise to even try to be honest.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there."

"But while the virtual particles are briefly part of our world they can interact with other particles.."

Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?


"They never disappear... they may change into other particle or particles, but they don't disappear. Energy and momentum needs to be conserved at every point in space-time (along with electric charge, angular momentum and color).

Many times that particles disappear is because we can't detect them. For instance, here is a classic bubble chamber picture of an antiproton annihilating with a proton producing a Lambda and anti-Lambda pair of baryons. The Lambda baryons are neutron and can't be seen in the bubble chamber and "disappear":

"As for quantum tunneling, the particle doesn't disappear, but is not observed in the classically forbidden region. It doesn't disappear for awhile, go out to the loading dock and take a smoke, it's just not being observed during the time that period of time. Since you are (purposefully) not observing the particle during the period of time that it is tunneling, you shouldn't ask questions about what it is doing during that period of time. And it certainly doesn't disappear from existence. "

https://www.quora.com/When-subatomi...e-widely-accepted-hypotheses-on-this-behavior

A universe from nothing at all? Ha.

Quotes out of context from a source that you do not understand does not support your argument.

Nor is it honest.

Try again, dad.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nothing out of context about particles that seem to disappear, when you cited mysterious disappearing and appearing stuff that may have created the universe. No wonder you appeal to trust in science, rather than making any sort of o cohesive case. Ridiculous.

dad, it was all out of context. Please, if you don't understand you should at the very least ask questions politely and properly.

But being honest is not a tool that you use. Sadly you know that if you are honest you will lose.

When you keep running away I can't make a case for you. Don't blame me for your flaws.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

By my limited understanding, the 'nothing' that physicists and cosmologists refer to when talking about the universe 'appearing out of nothing', is just a verbal convenience. In everyday life we say that empty jars and bottles have 'nothing' in them, but strictly speaking they contain air. You can suck all the air out to leave a vacuum, and call that 'nothing', but there will still be radiation in there. If you can prevent radiation entering the vacuum, you're left with empty spacetime. This may be closer to nothing than anything in our experience, but it's still 'something' - an emergent mesh of quantum fields.

Quantum fields are how our best physical model describes what underlies the matter and forces we're familiar with. Particles are wavelike excitations of quantum fields; each particle represents a separate quantum field. Forces are also mediated by particles, excitations of different quantum fields.

A characteristic property of quantum fields is that they fluctuate randomly; on average these fluctuations are pretty small - only enough to produce 'virtual' particle/antiparticle pairs that quickly annihilate (think of them as like complementary waves that appear and whose peaks and troughs then cancel each other out).

The size of these fluctuations is stochastic and there is an extremely small, but finite, probability that they can be extremely large. Given a vast extent of time, such a large fluctuation may happen, and the annihilation would be a messy business. The potentially huge positive & negative energies involved could seed a universe, but its overall energy would still be zero, as the 'positive' energy of the mass of the particles produced would be exactly balanced by the 'negative' energy of the resulting gravitational field as they distort spacetime.

So (roughly) a universe from 'nothing' is a statistically improbable universe from only fluctuating quantum fields that have an average of zero energy.

Disclaimer: this is a very crude description that may not be 100% accurate

It's not my favourite origin hypothesis, but it derives from our best physical model - that is consistent with the results of every experiment and test we've done.

Note that scientific hypotheses and theories don't claim to describe reality, but only to provide a reliable framework for predicting what we should observe in particular circumstances.

 

[Non sequitur]

OK thanks for the detailed response.

I guess one issue is how we would say that a nothing in the past would be like a nothing here and now that we are familiar with.
They can be wave like.

"A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/wave-particle_duality.htm

Since the quantum world is not fully understood now, it seems reasonable to say that we would not understand how it would have been before a universe theoretically existed.

Looking at what I posted earlier today, it seems that annihilate might not cover what happens to virtual particles? Or are you thinking of some other context?
Wow. That is a leap of faith to imagine the universe popping out of nothing due to some remote possibility that an unlikely large quantum fluctuation in the nothing that existed. Add to that the reality that we have no real idea even if the quantum realities in the nothing era were the same as now.
I'd have to agree!
No worries, science isn't either.

Predicting based on tracing things back assuming the same realities, and of course...no God or creation. In other words...religion, not fact based knowledge.

Good thing science doesn't claim to be 100% accurate, but at least we can test what is testable!

 

[Non sequitur]

Too bad that some quasi nothing burger before the universe began is not included in what you can test.

Would it be taken negatively, and not in the factual sense, if that fact applies to your god, as well?

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, for science that applies. For you and I, we can test God. Try Him, you just might like Him.

This is new information.

What can I do to test him?

Hopefully it will be in a way that can demonstrate him, not mentally arrive at a conclusion. Those things don't really test the reality of anything, aside form what I am willing to accept.

 

[Non sequitur]

Ask Jesus in yourself and see if it works. Then you can know.

Joh 7:17 -If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.

Check out the hundreds of already fulfilled prophesies also.

I have done that. Nothing happened.

Why did the test fail? Can he really not be tested?

 

[Non sequitur]

Maybe some folks take a while.

Tests don't work in an unspecified time frame.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I guess one issue is how we would say that a nothing in the past would be like a nothing here and now that we are familiar with.

As I've explained to you before, if the theory correctly describes how the physical world behaves today, and correctly predicts the results of experiments we do today; and if it also correctly predicts what we observe today when we apply it to models of the past in which we assume the physics was much the same as today, but it fails to correctly predict what we see today if we apply it to models of the past where we assume the physics to be different - then it's reasonable to suppose that past physics was much the same as it is today. It would be very hard to explain those results in any other way.

They can be wave like.
"A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of conventional concepts like "particle" and "wave" to meaningfully describe the behaviour of quantum objects."

https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/wave-particle_duality.htm

Yes; they're neither classical waves nor particles, they're wave-like excitations of quantum fields, but depending how we choose to measure them they can appear to behave in a particle-like or a wave-like manner.

Since the quantum world is not fully understood now, it seems reasonable to say that we would not understand how it would have been before a universe theoretically existed.

We know very precisely (i.e. with mathematical precision) how it behaves, but not why it behaves that way; but this is true of other effective physical theories too. We obviously can't know for certain if it behaved the same way prior to the universe as we know it, but we can try the same maths in various scenarios and see what results we get. The various hypotheses of how the current universe came to be are the results of such exercises. If a particular scenario doesn't predict a universe like the one we see, then it's clearly unlikely to be the one that produced it.

Looking at what I posted earlier today, it seems that annihilate might not cover what happens to virtual particles? Or are you thinking of some other context?

It's just a word for two complementary particles 'cancelling out' each other. In a wave description it would be 'destructive interference'.

That is a leap of faith to imagine the universe popping out of nothing due to some remote possibility that an unlikely large quantum fluctuation in the nothing that existed.

Not really. Given enough opportunities and enough time, the probability of even highly improbable events occurring approaches 1. Your chances of winning a lottery might be millions to one, but if you entered millions of lotteries millions of times, you'd be almost certain to win one. Quantum fluctuations occur at subatomic scales and on the smallest possible timescales, so, given cosmological temporal and spatial scales, even the most remote possibility will eventually occur. You may not find it aesthetically satisfying, but - as generations of gamblers have discovered - probability and statistics in the real world don't necessarily conform to our desires or intuitive expectations.

Add to that the reality that we have no real idea even if the quantum realities in the nothing era were the same as now.

If we assume they were, the maths can predict scenarios that give rise to a universe like ours. The challenge is to find testable predictions of a particular scenario that can uniquely identify it as the most promising candidate. To go further than, "It could have happened like this", would take new discoveries.

Predicting based on tracing things back assuming the same realities, and of course...no God or creation. In other words...religion, not fact based knowledge.

That's not what religion is; and it is fact-based knowledge in as much as assuming the 'same realities' applied in the past gives results consistent with what we observe today. If the 'realities' had been significantly different in the past, we could only get results consistent with what we observe today by arbitrary manipulation of the maths to correspond, and there's no reason to suppose that might be the case.

One can imagine all kinds of possibilities, but you need reasonable criteria of 'merit' to distinguish between them - the criteria of abduction: testability, fruitfulness, scope, simplicity (parsimony), and conservatism (coherence with existing knowledge). If simply assuming the same rules applied in the past works, then that model would outrank models that assume otherwise on simplicity and conservatism, even if all other criteria were equal - which they aren't.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Ask Jesus in yourself and see if it works. Then you can know.

That didn't work for me, despite many years of trying in various ways. Nor have I found any other plausible demonstration or evidence since.

 

[Non sequitur]

With spiritual things, more time might be involved.

Since the test is outside my control, I have nothing to worry about?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Perhaps it depends on what we mean by work.

It was the term you used - what do you think it means?