Cosmogenesis .

[unbeliever]

It wouldn't be a new universe it would be part of the already existing universe.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

 

You said vacuum fluctuation, hence vacuum, a void is an empty space, and if the big bang created everything, prior to it's creation there wasn't any empty space.

 

 

The name is just that. A name. It arises because they were first conceived as an effect within empty space. It doesn't mean they can't occur otherwise.

 

Well it definitely doesn't apply to non existence.

 

Then the void would be the domain of what field of science?

 

 

There's an need for a vacuum and that didn't exist, and vacuum energy is energy.

 

No there isn't and vacuum energy fluctuations automatically contain little or no net energy.

 

 

At some point a better (at least more complete) model of how spontaneous cosmogenesis comes about will be forthcoming. You'll have to wait. In the mean time I can only tell you what the plausible possibilities are for the process.

 

 

Your sense that an eternal universe solves this question is logically nonsensical.

 

Look at it this way. The real question is not so much "how did the universe begin?" it's "why is there anything at all in existence rather than nothing?".

The more complex existence is, the more unreasonable it seems that it managed to exist at all. An eternal, infinite universe is by definition infinitely complex. A universe which is not eternal and started off extremely simple and then became complex over time because of the very simple set of rules on which it runs is far more reasonable.

 

 

Besides the universe can't be eternal because:

 

An eternal universe (infinite or not) would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

Rubbish.

 

If vacuum fluctuations in the universe caused a rapid expansion in part of the universe the resulting matter and energy would be part of the universe.

 

 

The name is just that. A name. It arises because they were first conceived as an effect within empty space. It doesn't mean they can't occur otherwise.

 

Its energy and there is no escaping that fact, space isn't empty, it was once thought to be empty but we now know that it isn't.

 

 

Then the void would be the domain of what field of science?

 

It wouldn't be the field of any science because it doesn't exist and we have no reason to assume that it is even possible.

 

 

No there isn't and vacuum energy fluctuations automatically contain little or no net energy.

But still energy.

 

 

 

 

 

At some point a better (at least more complete) model of how spontaneous cosmogenesis comes about will be forthcoming. You'll have to wait. In the mean time I can only tell you what the plausible possibilities are for the process.

 

But only out of an already existing universe.

 

 

Your sense that an eternal universe solves this question is logically nonsensical.

 

Non existence isn't known to be possible, its not even possible to imagine it because you end up thinking about empty space which we also don't know to be possible, problem is that empty space assuming that its possible would be something therefore part of the already existing universe.

 

 

 

 

Look at it this way. The real question is not so much "how did the universe begin?" it's "why is there anything at all in existence rather than nothing?".

The more complex existence is, the more unreasonable it seems that it managed to exist at all. An eternal, infinite universe is by definition infinitely complex. A universe which is not eternal and started off extremely simple and then became complex over time because of the very simple set of rules on which it runs is far more reasonable.

 

Presumably because nothing is impossible, it was a 50/50 chance, something or nothing, if it had been nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

 

Existence is more plausible than existence appearing spontaneously out of non existence and then existing for ever.

 

Its just not plausible to think that once there was nothing and then there was something that will last for ever.

[unbeliever]

If vacuum fluctuations in the universe caused a rapid expansion in part of the universe the resulting matter and energy would be part of the universe.

 

 

Nope.

 

Its energy and there is no escaping that fact, space isn't empty, it was once thought to be empty but we now know that it isn't.

Nope again. Vacuum fluctuations with zero net energy are entirely permitted.

 

 

It wouldn't be the field of any science because it doesn't exist and we have no reason to assume that it is even possible.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

But still energy.

 

See above

 

But only out of an already existing universe.

 

Nope again.

 

Non existence isn't known to be possible, its not even possible to imagine it because you end up thinking about empty space which we also don't know to be possible, problem is that empty space assuming that its possible would be something therefore part of the already existing universe.

 

 

What does it matter whether you can imagine it. I can't imagine 4-dimensional space-time or indeterminacy. This is why we have maths.

 

 

Presumably because nothing is impossible, it was a 50/50 chance, something or nothing, if it had been nothing we wouldn't be discussing it.

 

 

Wow. Level 12 nonsense.

 

Existence is more plausible than existence appearing spontaneously out of non existence and then existing for ever.

 

Really not.

 

Its just not plausible to think that once there was nothing and then there was something that will last for ever.

 

Instinct over measurements and maths. Really?

 

 

An eternal universe (infinite or not) would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

Nope.

It couldn't exist without the universe and its in the universe so therefore part of the universe.

 

 

Nope again. Vacuum fluctuations with zero net energy are entirely permitted.

 

Yes in the universe, but how would non existence fluctuate when it doesn't exist. You need to prove that non existence is possible and that non existence can fluctuate. Good look with that one.

 

Rubbish.

Then you tell me which field of any science studies non existence.

 

 

 

Nope again.

No universe no vacuum, hence no vacuum fluctuations.

 

 

What does it matter whether you can imagine it. I can't imagine 4-dimensional space-time or indeterminacy. This is why we have maths.

Maths doesn't prove or even try to tell us that non existence is possible, and it doesn't tell us that a universe can emerge from it.

 

 

 

Wow. Level 12 nonsense.

 

There were only two possibilities something or nothing it just happened to be something, the universe.

 

 

Really not.

Since we have no idea if nothing is possible and we know that something is possible, it far more likely that something always existed rather than nothing turned into something.

 

 

Instinct over measurements and maths. Really?

 

 

Maths doesn't tell us that nothing turn into something or that nothing can turn into something, or that nothing is even possible.

[unbeliever]

There were only two possibilities something or nothing it just happened to be something, the universe.

 

That's daft as hell.

 

I've already countered the rest multiple times.

 

Also:

 

An eternal universe (infinite or not) would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

That's daft as hell.

 

 

How is there more than two possibilities, existence or non existence, what are the other options?

 

---------- Post added 13-05-2016 at 15:33 ----------

 

I've already countered the rest multiple times.

 

 

And I countered you counter each and every time.

[unbeliever]

How is there more than two possibilities, existence or non existence, what are the other options?

 

False premise.

 

 

And I countered you counter each and every time.

 

Only with the repetition of nonsense arising from false logic and misunderstanding.

 

 

An eternal universe (infinite or not) would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

[sutty27]

False premise.

 

What are the other possibilities?

 

Only with the repetition of nonsense arising from false logic and misunderstanding.

 

I was just countering your repetition.

 

The belief that a universe can spontaneously emerge from non existence is no more valid than the nonsense spouted by those that believe God did it.

 

What proof do you have that non existence is possible, what non existent mechanism could cause the universe to emerge from non existence.

 

 

Is your idea of non existence an infinite vacuum with infinite fluctuations?

[unbeliever]

What are the other possibilities?

 

 

 

I was just countering your repetition.

 

The belief that a universe can spontaneously emerge from non existence is no more valid than the nonsense spouted by those that believe God did it.

 

What proof do you have that non existence is possible, what non existent mechanism could cause the universe to emerge from non existence.

 

 

Is your idea of non existence an infinite vacuum with infinite fluctuations?

 

 

The void is both spaceless and timeless. But that doesn't mean it doesn't fluctuate.

In this model the quantum fluctuation initially formed a bubble of highly curved space-time with either zero, or very close to zero net-energy. From then on it expanded eventually growing into the universe we see today.

 

I realise that this answer is not entirely satisfactory. It's also a long way from being verified. I really do sympathise. But as weird as it sounds intuitively, it's the only model conceived so far which can explain the universe's existence without coming into conflict with verified laws of physics.

And as I say, despite your repeated, and repeated, and repeated again mis-use of the word "assumption" we know pretty much everything about what happened from the moment of the big bang +~400,000 years, most of what happened down to a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, and we're gradually closing in on the rest.

 

Oh and one thing we know for absolute, 100%, not the slightest shadow of a hint of a doubt certainty is that the universe is not eternal. We know this because:

An eternal universe (infinite or not) would be in thermal equilibrium.

This is an unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics.

It has been understood for over 150 years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_paradox

You only have to learn a little bit of 19th century physics to understand this.

Quantum mechanics and general relativity are irrelevant.

 

Not to mention that it would be completely at odds with a very wide range of astronomical observations.

Example (one of many):

The oldest stars in the observable universe are around 13 billion years old. The big bang model explains that the very first stars, because of the high density of the universe at that time, would be very large and would supernova after a rather short life. Such is the way with big stars. The second generation of stars formed from the remains of the first are more like what we mostly see today.

However due to the rate at which they consume their hydrogen fuel, smallish stars (<0.8x the mass of the sun) and smaller (which is a large fraction of the stars) have a lifetime of well over 13 billion years.

Assuming that by magic, or divine intervention, or mystic hydrogen emitting black holes or any of the other ridiculous notions you've put forth; that the universe is eternal (which it clearly isn't); where the hell are all the old stars?

Edited May 13, 2016 by unbeliever

[sutty27]

The void is both spaceless and timeless. But that doesn't mean it doesn't fluctuate.

 

Technicaly a void can't be spaceless because by definition a void is an empty space. But at least we are talking about the same thing, what I call non existence you call a void.

 

How can non existence fluctuate and what proof do you have that it is even possible.

 

In this model the quantum fluctuation initially formed a bubble of highly curved space-time with either zero, or very close to zero net-energy. From then on it expanded eventually growing into the universe we see today.

 

Quantum fluctuation happen in a vacuum which isn't spacelsss nor empty.

There is no evidence to suggest that vacuum fluctuation can happen if the vacuum doesn't exist.

 

 

I realise that this answer is not entirely satisfactory. It's also a long way from being verified. I really do sympathise. But as weird as it sounds intuitively, it's the only model conceived so far which can explain the universe's existence without coming into conflict with verified laws of physics.

 

Its far from satisfactory and the laws of physics don't apply because they only apply to the universe, not to non existence, hence the reason they break down before we get to nothing.

 

And as I say, despite your repeated, and repeated, and repeated again mis-use of the word "assumption" we know pretty much everything about what happened from the moment of the big bang +~400,000 years, most of what happened down to a tiny fraction of a second after the big bang, and we're gradually closing in on the rest.

 

No really we don't, what they think they know is supported by many assumptions to make it work, and even if it is fact it still happened in a universe that already existed.