the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[AdB]

The problem with this line of reasoning is that it equates 'eternal' with 'infinite'. Instead it simply isn't accurate to ask what that 'unconscious mechanism' was doing 'before' it created reality. Because for that unconscious mechanism there's no such thing as before it created reality. It's like asking what it was doing before it created time. It's a nonsensical question.
You are correct about one thing though, it just did what it would do by default, namely create the universe. And at least as far as I can see, no consciousness was required.

This is just empty symantics juggling...
A quick look at the Oxfort definitions shows both words essentially have the same meaning, one more leaning to duration and the other more to extend.
Eternal: Lasting or existing forever, without beginning or end, permanently.
Infinite: Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size, impossible to measure or calculate.

So the point is that because the universe cannot be eternal, it will have had to be created at a specific moment by something which ultimately is uncaused itself, and subsequently the universe has had to be sustained by this uncaused cause.

If the uncaused cause would not be conscious, so merely being a force or something like a "quantum field", then it would not be able to alter its behavior by itself at any given moment, however that would even work within "timeless" conditions. And because it is uncaused there can be nothing else that could have caused it to change its behaviour. This means it could only just do what it would do by default andnit would do just that for all eternity, which would mean it would have created the universe already an eternity ago, which we know is not possible.

Therefore the uncaused cause of the universe hás to be consious because that is the only way, after having nót created the universe for an eternity while itself being eternally self-existend and unchanging, to then at that specific moment deciding to dó create the universe.

 

[AdB]

A point which puzzles me is creationists seem to be blissfully unaware that by considering physical 'constants' to change with time contradicts another creationist theme of the universe being fine tuned where the constants have specific unchanging values as set by a creator.

If the effective speed of light (as we can measure it) is influenced by the strength of the ZPE (with the ZPE being an actual energy field as per Plancks 1911 quantum theory) and other "constanst" are equally (inversely) proportionate influenced, then the overal effects which indeed are delicately balanced will remain as they were intended.

 

[Larniavc]

If

Can you show me the observation that supports your idea? The maths would help as well.

 

[Palmfever]

The origin of the universe​

What is the origin of the universe? Does it have a beginning or has it existed eternally?
Can it be self-existent in the same way God is assumed to be self-existent?
Or if it did have a beginning, what caused it to come into existence?

And regardless if it has existed eternally or not, why does the universe even exist at all?

An eternal universe​

While there can never be a conclusive answer to this question, there are strong arguments against the possibility of an eternal universe. Below are three briefly described.

The mathematical argument​

If the universe never began to exist, then the number of events will be infinite, but a collection of infinite actual events will lead to a number of mathematical problems.

However, one of the basic principles of the universe is that every aspect of it seems to be ruled by mathematics. This indicates that infinity is a concept which can’t exists in the physical reality.

As mathematician David Hilbert has stated, "The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea."

The expanding universe argument​

Starting in 1913, scientists like Vesto Slipher, Albert Einstein and Edwin Hubble discovered very compelling evidence that the universe was expanding.

In 1965, scientists Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) which has generally been accepted to be the remnants of the first radiation escaping after the so called “Big Bang”.

In 1968 and 1970, Stephen Hawking, George Ellis and Roger Penrose published papers that elaborated on Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity, demonstrating that both time and space must have had a finite beginning in a singularity that corresponded to the origins of matter and energy.

About 11 years of work by cosmologists Arvind Borde, Alan H. Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin culminating in 2003 established that this conclusion holds for all theories of cosmic origin for which there is observational evidence.

If the universe has indeed expanded from a singularity or at least an extremely tiny start, then the universe, at least as it currently exists, has had a finite beginning.

The entropy argument​

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the entropy of the totality of the universe, as an isolated system, will increase over time, the entropy of the total universe can never decrease.

Although this doesn’t demand a finite beginning because there isn’t really a maximum to the level of order, it does mean that eventually the universe will end to exist as we know it in the so called “heat death".

So with a finite end, the universe can’t be eternal in its nature.

Counter arguments​

One may argue against the mathematical argument that in a remote past the properties of the universe were completely different, allowing it to be eternal in its nature without violating the laws of mathematics, or possibly the laws of mathematics were different in that remote past.

But that would only mean that at the very moment the universe begot its current properties it would have had to become finite in its nature, effectively that moment would actually be the beginning of the universe. The presumptive eternal prior state would then be nothing more than the uncaused cause of the current universe.



One may also argue against the expanding universe argument that the proposed singularity was merely the result of a previous universe that collapsed into itself and that the current universe will also collapse into itself in a distant future, this is called the Oscillating Model.

But this concept would only lead to an infinite loop of subsequent universes, which would again be confronted by the mathematical argument.



Finally, one could argue against the entropy argument that the universe could be revived by energy being added to the universe from outside the universe which would decrease the entropy periodically.

But this would need a reality outside of the universe that would logically be the very cause of the universe, thereby rendering the universe not self-existent.

Also, when additional energy would have been added periodically there would have to be a starting point where the initial energy was added to the universe, effectively being the beginning of the universe.

Conclusion​

So although there is no conclusive proof of the universe not being eternal, there are very strong arguments that show it has to be finite.

That should be sufficient to discard the option of an external universe, as Alexander Vilenkin once stated: “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince unreasonable men.”

The cause of the universe​

So with the option of an eternally existing universe ruled out, what can be stated about a beginning of the universe?

The uncaused cause​

Everything in the universe is caused by something, and that cause is always outside and separate from what was being caused. Therefore it follows that the universe itself also needs to have been caused by something else. And that whatever this is, it needs to be outside and separate from it, in other words it needs to be unlimited by the restrains of the physical universe itself.

This means the cause of the universe needs to be:

• Not limited by time, in other words it needs to be eternal.
• Not limited by three dimensional space, in other words it needs to be omnipresent.
• Not limited by matter, in other words it needs to be immaterial or spiritual.

One may argue that whatever is the direct cause of the universe was itself also caused by yet again something else, and that something yet again by something else, and so on. But this would also be confronted by the problems of infinity so ultimately there has to be a truly uncaused cause. So from the perspective of the physical universe it’s not relevant how its cause is exactly constructed because in essence it only maters that ultimately there has to be an uncaused cause, a truly self-existing entity that is the ultimate cause of the universe.

This uncaused cause would have to provide the essentials of the universe.

The basic components of the universe​

In essence everything that exists in the universe is an expression of energy in one way or the other, therefore the first essential thing that needs to be provided for the universe to start existing is the unimaginably large amount of energy that is present in the universe.

So the cause of the universe has to be able to provide and incorporate all this energy, and because energy is the result of action, the cause of the universe needs to be able to act independently and unprovoked, therefore it needs to be a sovereign entity.

The laws of physics​

The different forms in which the energy of the universe is being expressed is governed by the laws of physics. So if these laws of physics were established at that same moment when the energy was incorporated into the universe, then these laws would force this energy to be expressed in its different forms.

These laws of physics are basically the description of the boundaries to which everything in the universe is submitted to, so the cause of the universe has to have the authority to establish these boundaries, therefore again it needs to be a sovereign entity.

Mind​

There is one more aspect that exists in the universe which we know as the “mind". This encompasses everything from thought to emotions and intuition. One may argue that the mind is merely the result of neurological impulses in our brain, but this position leaves many phenomenon unaccounted for, it much more reasonable and logical that the brain is actually interacting with the mind with the mind being an immaterial phenomenon that is not bound by space nor time. It can also be stated that the mind isn’t just another expression of energy.

Because the mind is immaterial and not bound by space nor time, having these same trades it seems to be a direct expression of the very cause of the universe, therefore the cause of the universe needs to be an individual entity.

The identity of the uncaused cause​

So the cause of the universe needs to be a self-existing, eternal, sovereign and individual entity.

These are exactly the trades that are attributed to the God of the Bible… Were the authors of the Bible such brilliant minds that they all figured this out, or were they merely describing the reality of the true Creator of the universe?

I.ve always found it easier to find what those who study this and other topics and share that Rather than re-write it all. Following is one theory.

Excerpts from The physicist who argues that there are no objective laws of physics

….. One of the main lessons of quantum mechanics is that the distinction between us and the world isn’t really there, not sharply anyway. It tells us the properties of a particle are encoded in a probabilistic entity we call a wave function, which tells us the likelihood of it appearing here or there, for instance – but that the particle cannot be attributed definite properties until it is observed. It’s screaming at us that observers really matter.

How should we think about these observers?

There are many different interpretations of these experimental findings from quantum mechanics, which can be divided into two broad classes. In one set of interpretations, the quantum state, or the wave function, is “ontic”, meaning it is a real property, such as a particle’s position or velocity. In these interpretations, one can maintain the simple notion of realism, and just add quantum states to the intrinsic properties of systems.

Another class of interpretation says that the wave function isn’t a property of the system being studied, but rather a property that the observer – a second system – attributes to it. It is a way of accounting for the knowledge or the belief that the second system has about the first. In this case, the wave function is said to be “epistemic”.

Some physicists take this epistemic route, but maintain that there is still some hidden reality of the standard kind, it is just that quantum states do not capture it. However, a number of epistemic interpretations suggest something more radical: there is no hidden reality. This means that quantum states are all there is and reality can only be defined in the relations between observers and what they observe.

Perhaps the most extreme example is QBism, which holds that the wave function is merely a tool we use to organise our uncertainty about the world. But there are other interpretations, like relational quantum mechanics, which says that the core of reality lies not in objects themselves, but in their interactions.


….. One basic philosophical notion of laws starts with the idea that there are facts out there in the world and there are patterns among these facts. Physical laws go beyond patterns, they are said to “supervene” on facts – but both facts and laws are considered real.

The problem is that space and time are crucial for first identifying and then gluing together these facts about the world. If you check the main proposals for what laws are from philosophers, they all rely on space and time to some extent. But quantum gravity strongly suggests space and time are not actually fundamental. Instead, we suppose that space-time emerges only in some approximation, rather than being built in at the fundamental level. How does that impact our understanding of laws? Well, we have to replace space and time with an alternative grounding for laws.


What do you mean when you say that space-time emerges?

.... We don’t yet have a working theory of quantum gravity, but every approach so far tells us that classical space-time – which functions as a gravitational field and is smooth and has a definite geometry – is not going to be there. That’s because the minimal step we have to take is to turn these classical fields into quantum fields, which means they have quantum properties, like superpositions and quantum fluctuations and so on. So already, you cannot rely on a space-time with a clear geometry and causal properties. Some approaches to quantum gravity go further and replace the classical fields with something else.

So what would reality look like without any physical laws?

The picture I have in mind is like an infinitely complex, amorphous reality to which we give shape and meaning by virtue of the models we construct. In a sense, models and laws are in our head, but there isn’t such a sharp distinction between our thoughts and reality. Reality is made by our models, not just described by them. The models we create, the concepts, mathematics and language we use – these all depend on our interactions with the world, our cognitive structures, our history. The same is true in broad terms for any agent making sense of the external world. My cat, for example.
Your cat?

Of course, his cognitive structures and sensory experiences are different, as is the way he makes sense of observations. So the models of reality he constructs are not like mine. Therefore, from an epistemic perspective, the laws of nature, according to him, are different.

What are we supposed to do then, if cats and people and other agents, whatever they are, have differing perceptions of reality?

In the naive realist picture, that is totally trivial: there is just the world out there and models that get closer to it. But the moment we add the complex relations between models and the world, and we realise that what is real is somehow at the interface between the two, then it’s much less trivial.

The key issue – and it’s difficult – is to reflect upon the relations between the different, equally valid perspectives of different epistemic agents. What makes their perspectives somehow coherent with one another? Well, we communicate. We aren’t just epistemic agents, but also social epistemic agents. Social agents construct a world that is dependent on the interactions between agents. The best models in science are not out of the blue or simply dictated by nature. They are agreed upon by the community of epistemic agents we call scientists, considering all the other constraints coming from observations, logic and so on.

How does all this change our conception of what a physical theory is in relation to reality?

.... It forces us to think more seriously about the relation between our theories and reality. And it suggests a direction for research in which we revise what we mean by what is real, where these epistemic components are far more relevant. To a certain extent, it also gives us much more responsibility. The notion of objective, exact laws governing the world is the scientific version of God. Without it, we are like a ship in a storm; we have to navigate this world alone.

In the old notion of reality, we have no responsibility for what things are – we just happen to be here, we don’t participate in the world. I would say that the epistemic perspective forces a more participatory understanding of what is real, with many more philosophical responsibilities as scientists to reflect on what we do. But it’s also much more exciting, because we are not just witnessing something we have no role in. We have to embrace the fact that we make reality.

We have to embrace the fact that we make reality?
No we don't. We apply a set of rules to it that help us to understand our observations of it. And as it is in science, those rules change as our understanding does.

In some small way perhaps this is what was meant when it is said in scripture; 'You are gods'

 

[Palmfever]

And here is another take on origins.
Why the big bang may not have been the beginning of the universe

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.

“The universe may not have had a beginning and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe”

Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.

In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.

There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying. For example, an eternally inflating universe implies that we live in one space-time bubble of many. Astrophysicist Hiranya V. Peiris, famous for her work on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, has with co-authors proposed that CMB data can be used to test interactions between our space-time bubble and others.

If I had to theorise why it is less popular to write about this in popular publications, I’d say it is because there haven’t been any new splashy ideas about it recently. The question of whether there was a beginning, of course, remains infinitely interesting!

There have been two changes to the way physicists think about this cosmological timeline. The first is that research on inflationary models, which study the exponential expansion of space-time, indicate that inflation may be an eternal process. As in, the universe may not have had a beginning moment, and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe, one that was expanding exponentially even before what we call the big bang. Mathematically, this seems the most likely scenario – assuming inflation is correct.

“The universe may not have had a beginning and we may live in what is called an eternally inflating universe”

Second, these days, people often use “hot big bang” to refer to a time period, rather than a single moment. The story goes that in the early stages of our corner of space-time, what we might call the visible universe, the universe was very hot and dense. This hot big bang era was filled with an energetic goo from which atoms would eventually emerge and begin to cluster, along with dark matter, into the structures we observe today: stars, galaxies, planets and, yes, people.


In a recent email to me and my editor, one of these people structures – a thoughtful reader – sent in a question that points to this transformation in how we think about the big bang. The reader noted that, for a while, it was fashionable to publish articles about the big bang and these days there are fewer. While I can’t speak to publishing choices by the editors at this magazine or any other, I can say that in recent years, there has been more (if not total) consensus in the cosmology community about the likely scenario for the inflationary universe – that our space-time went through a period of rapid, exponential expansion. A plethora of data supports the inflationary picture, which mathematically favours an eternal scenario.


There are, of course, detractors. Paul Steinhardt, one of the early thinkers on inflation, has since become one of its most vocal critics. But even in his competitor model of the universe, the big bang is replaced by a big bounce and a cyclic universe. The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

Models of the very early universe are hard to test directly. That doesn’t stop people from trying. For example, an eternally inflating universe implies that we live in one space-time bubble of many. Astrophysicist Hiranya V. Peiris, famous for her work on the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation, has with co-authors proposed that CMB data can be used to test interactions between our space-time bubble and others.

If I had to theorise why it is less popular to write about this in popular publications, I’d say it is because there haven’t been any new splashy ideas about it recently. The question of whether there was a beginning, of course, remains infinitely interesting!



My Theory
John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.


Colossians 1
15 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
Daniele Oriti has it partially right. The observer plays an important role. Christ is the originator and the observer that is the glue. The only perspective that matters.


Hebrews 1:1 In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the universe.

So once more I say, Science is the study of creation. God is the observer that matters.

 

[sjastro]

If the effective speed of light (as we can measure it) is influenced by the strength of the ZPE (with the ZPE being an actual energy field as per Plancks 1911 quantum theory) and other "constanst" are equally (inversely) proportionate influenced, then the overal effects which indeed are delicately balanced will remain as they were intended.

From a mainstream physics perspective, it doesn’t work that way.

The ZPE being a quantum field of lowest energy is an outcome of QFT (quantum field theory) which by definition is Lorentz invariant where the speed of light remains constant.
This is not surprising as QFTs are a unification of quantum mechanics and special relativity which is based on the postulate the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers.

 

[AdB]

Can you show me the observation that supports your idea? The maths would help as well.

Barry Setterfield has a theory about this

 

[AdB]

The ZPE being a quantum field of lowest energy is an outcome of QFT

Did you intentionally miss my remark?

with the ZPE being an actual energy field as per Plancks 1911 quantum theory

 

[Larniavc]

Barry Setterfield has a theory about this

Who cares? I’m asking you two specific questions. Will you answer them?

 

[AdB]

Who cares? I’m asking you two specific questions. Will you answer them?

so you don't care about the theory that will answer your questions?

 

[sjastro]

Did you intentionally miss my remark?

I suggest you become acquainted with the scope of Planck's work before making these type of remarks.
His work involved coming up with an empirically derived equation (Planck's law) to deal with the Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia problem for blackbody radiation.

It is a bit of a stretch to claim Planck somehow pioneered the idea of ZPE as Planck himself admitted he had no idea why blackbody radiation was quantized in his equation which was later addressed by Einstein and Bohr.

Even then there was not a satisfactory explanation for ZPE, it was when an attempt was made to unify quantum mechanics with special relativity which resulted in the Klein–Gordon equation - Wikipedia.
Solving the equation led to nonsensical solutions such as energy levels being negative (which was later explained as the energy levels of antiparticles) and probabilities which had negative values.
This required a major rethink such as particles being the excitation of the field and the fields being quantized.

This led to the creation of quantum field theory where ZPE could be explained as the energy of the vacuum state which is the quantum field with in the lowest energy state as described in this post.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

 

[sjastro]

Barry Setterfield has a theory about this

As you very well know Setterfield's theory was thoroughly debunked.

Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

I'm looking for people who are actively following up on Barry Setterfield's work on Zero Point Energy Plasma Cosmology. You can find his website here: barrysetterfield.org

www.christianforums.com

 

[Larniavc]

so you don't care about the theory that will answer your questions?

I asked you to show me the maths behind your assertion.

 

[AdB]

We have to embrace the fact that we make reality?
No we don't. We apply a set of rules to it that help us to understand our observations of it. And as it is in science, those rules change as our understanding does.

In some small way perhaps this is what was meant when it is said in scripture; 'You are gods'

I don't think we play a part in somehow creating reality, the only thing is we can come to different conclusions on how thar reality sticks together, actually the analogy given in the article tells just that...

Of course, his cognitive structures and sensory experiences are different, as is the way he makes sense of observations. So the models of reality he constructs are not like mine. Therefore, from an epistemic perspective, the laws of nature, according to him, are different.

Christ is the originator and the observer that is the glue. The only perspective that matters.

Yeah quantum mechanics leads to some pretty weird ideas, Christ created the world and logically observed it, but I don't think Him observing the creation is doing the things QM is suggesting that observing would do to reality

The key point, ultimately, is that physicists don’t like singularities, and the search has always been on for a more satisfying model. Much as the idea of a “beginning moment” might satisfy the intuition we have developed in a world where some of the most dominant religious traditions teach us that there is a definitive beginning, from a scientific point of view, the singularity is a mathematical problem to be solved.

The scientific approach to the Biblical creation narrative doesn't require a singularity. Looking at several Bible texts it seems that God created the universe Ex Nihilo already with a certain volume which He then expanded through His direct intervention.

Psalm 104:2 and Isaiah 40:22 compare “the heavens” with a tent or a curtain,
Isaiah 42:5 states the heavens were first created, and subsequently, seemingly in a separate activity were stretched.
Both a tent and a curtain will first be created before they will be stretched out.

They are constructed with the intent to be stretched out, but at the time when they are created they are not yet stretched out, but they do already occupy a certain space. So these texts give the impression that the universe was initially created already having a certain volume, not a singularity, but then was expanded.

 

[AdB]

As you very well know Setterfield's theory was thoroughly debunked.

Barry Setterfield's Plasma Cosmology with Zero Point Energy

I'm looking for people who are actively following up on Barry Setterfield's work on Zero Point Energy Plasma Cosmology. You can find his website here: barrysetterfield.org

www.christianforums.com

That I don't have all the technical insights to respond to these objections while Barry is struggling with health issues so he's not able to address all my questions doesn't mean it's "thoroughly debunked".
It is true there are still some issues, specifically some mathimatical, that need further investigation, but the overal theory is pretty solid.
But of course, by arguning from a position that "QED is the absolute truth" (like insisting ZPE is not what SED assumes it to be) you will always find ways to argue his theory is total nonsense...

 

[AdB]

I asked you to show me the maths behind your assertion.

you can find them in Setterfields work, no need to copy paste everything here

 

[AdB]

I asked you to show me the maths behind your assertion.

Why aren't you asking for the observations as you first asked for with the addition of some math being "helpfull"?

 

[AdB]

I suggest you become acquainted with the scope of Planck's work before making these type of remarks.
His work involved coming up with an empirically derived equation (Planck's law) to deal with the Ultraviolet catastrophe - Wikipedia problem for blackbody radiation.

It is a bit of a stretch to claim Planck somehow pioneered the idea of ZPE as Planck himself admitted he had no idea why blackbody radiation was quantized in his equation which was later addressed by Einstein and Bohr.

Even then there was not a satisfactory explanation for ZPE, it was when an attempt was made to unify quantum mechanics with special relativity which resulted in the Klein–Gordon equation - Wikipedia.
Solving the equation led to nonsensical solutions such as energy levels being negative (which was later explained as the energy levels of antiparticles) and probabilities which had negative values.
This required a major rethink such as particles being the excitation of the field and the fields being quantized.

This led to the creation of quantum field theory where ZPE could be explained as the energy of the vacuum state which is the quantum field with in the lowest energy state as described in this post.

Spacetime or a vacuum can never be totally empty.

Given recent threads involving Krauss about something being created from nothing here is the science perspective. The concept of nothing is very much tied in with the modern or non classical version of a vacuum which is a quantum field in the lowest energy level. You can’t divorce a field from...

www.christianforums.com

In short, Planck was pretty dissatisfied with his constant being a mathematical fudge factor with no foundation in reality, so he came with a theory about that in 1911, proposing the ZPE as a real energy field, intrinsic to the universe and adjusting his equation accordingly with good results.

 

[Larniavc]

Why aren't you asking for the observations as you first asked for with the addition of some math being "helpfull"?

As you did not answer both requests for the first time of asking I though one thing at a time would be easier for you.

 

[Larniavc]

you can find them in Setterfields work, no need to copy paste everything here

His work is renowned garbage.