Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

Krauss lecture explains modern cosmology

RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2014 1:10:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Physicist Lawrence Krauss does a brilliant job of explaining difficult concepts of modern cosmology including how the curvature of space is measured, why a flat universe implies it could be created by quantum fluctuation, and how we know the age of the universe. The lecture is about 45 minutes.
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 9:21:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 1:10:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Physicist Lawrence Krauss does a brilliant job of explaining difficult concepts of modern cosmology including how the curvature of space is measured, why a flat universe implies it could be created by quantum fluctuation, and how we know the age of the universe. The lecture is about 45 minutes.



Lawrence Krauss is a brilliant scientist and does a really good job at explaining things.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:45:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/12/2014 1:10:28 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
Physicist Lawrence Krauss does a brilliant job of explaining difficult concepts of modern cosmology including how the curvature of space is measured, why a flat universe implies it could be created by quantum fluctuation, and how we know the age of the universe. The lecture is about 45 minutes.



Quantum fluctuations require a background space-time, so the idea of space-time (the universe) itself coming into being as a quantum fluctuation is impossible a priori.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:05:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?

Seems possible, but much more likely simple, as producing more and more complex effects requires increasingly more favorable luck. Pretty much what QM says, essentially anything, such as the Statue of Liberty waving it's hand, is possible, but becomes increasingly more unlikely as the complexity increases.

There's a reason why species don't just appear by chance. It is theoretically possible (nothing in the laws of physics prevents this), but the gradual slope from simplicity>complexity is much more likely.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:07:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I think we are equivocating the concept of properties, with the physical manifestation of properties.

Because in that case 'nothing' is itself a property/attribute.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:10:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:07:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I think we are equivocating the concept of properties, with the physical manifestation of properties.

Because in that case 'nothing' is itself a property/attribute.

Well, if there is nothing, then there is no cars, no cell phones, and no words. Nothing is nothing. Thus, there would be no potentiality either. Thus, if there is nothing, there cannot be something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:12:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:05:04 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?

Seems possible, but much more likely simple, as producing more and more complex effects requires increasingly more favorable luck. Pretty much what QM says, essentially anything, such as the Statue of Liberty waving it's hand, is possible, but becomes increasingly more unlikely as the complexity increases.


There's a reason why species don't just appear by chance. It is theoretically possible (nothing in the laws of physics prevents this), but the gradual slope from simplicity>complexity is much more likely.

But the idea that something can come from nothing seems stupid to me, almost as dumb as the idea that space-time can come into being as a quantum fluctuation, as that itself requires space-time.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:13:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:07:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I think we are equivocating the concept of properties, with the physical manifestation of properties.

Because in that case 'nothing' is itself a property/attribute.

Potentiality is something. The potentiality for the next word typed is logged in something else that exists. So, if you have nothing, no potentiality. HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET SOMETHING?!
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:23:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:13:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:07:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I think we are equivocating the concept of properties, with the physical manifestation of properties.

Because in that case 'nothing' is itself a property/attribute.

Potentiality is something. The potentiality for the next word typed is logged in something else that exists. So, if you have nothing, no potentiality. HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET SOMETHING?!

I think neither of us are going to budge if we just reassert our stances that 'potentially is something' and 'no potentiality is something,' or even that 'potentiality' is a meaningless attribute. As this seems to be as hoc stop-gap.

Furthermore, if the universe can spawn such that it's attributes all perfectly cancel out (some sort of extension of the zero energy universe hypothesis), then the sum of everything equates to 'nothing'.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 2:52:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:23:59 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:13:45 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:07:11 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:01:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:59:37 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?


The 'zero-energy universe' is a rather elegant illustration of how what appears to be something can essentially still equate to nothing. Couldn't such a thing also come for the underlying substance to do so as well?

My only beef is with the universe coming into being via a quantum fluctuation. This is impossible, as quantum fluctuations require space, and space requires a universe. The universe cannot exist before the universe.


Since nothing has no rules, no properties, it seems reasonable to expect anything that does spontaneously exist will most likely be amongst the simplest of possible things.

Nothing has no potentiality, thus, if there is nothing, there would remain nothing.

Where did you get the 'no potentiality' clause from? I don't remember this ever being a property of anything. In fact this seems a positive attribute which nothing should not possess

You said nothing has "no rules", and "no properties", but Ironically, those are properties as well. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black ;)

I think we are equivocating the concept of properties, with the physical manifestation of properties.

Because in that case 'nothing' is itself a property/attribute.

Potentiality is something. The potentiality for the next word typed is logged in something else that exists. So, if you have nothing, no potentiality. HOW THE HELL DO YOU GET SOMETHING?!

I think neither of us are going to budge if we just reassert our stances that 'potentially is something' and 'no potentiality is something,' or even that 'potentiality' is a meaningless attribute. As this seems to be as hoc stop-gap.

Furthermore, if the universe can spawn such that it's attributes all perfectly cancel out (some sort of extension of the zero energy universe hypothesis), then the sum of everything equates to 'nothing'.

I don't disagree with the zero-energy universe hypothesis, I just disagree that it means the universe can come from nothing. It means that the universe can come into being from some 0 energy state, with a law built into it allowing for a universe. That isn't really "nothing".
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/13/2014 6:27:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 1:45:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum fluctuations require a background space-time, so the idea of space-time (the universe) itself coming into being as a quantum fluctuation is impossible a priori.

If you start out with the premise that only magical creation is possible, then you will end up concluding that anything non-magical is impossible. The approach the Krauss and others are taking is to ask if there is any non-magical theory that agrees with known physical laws and known observations. Until proved it remains a theory. Krauss points to the universe being flat as necessary to keep conservation of energy with the Big Bang, important observations. Krauss is critical of string theory as lacking proof.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 12:40:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 6:27:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:09 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Quantum fluctuations require a background space-time, so the idea of space-time (the universe) itself coming into being as a quantum fluctuation is impossible a priori.

If you start out with the premise that only magical creation is possible, then you will end up concluding that anything non-magical is impossible.

It doesn't matter what premise you start with, it won't doesn't change the fact that you cannot explain the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations require a background space.

The approach the Krauss and others are taking is to ask if there is any non-magical theory that agrees with known physical laws and known observations.

All observations say quantum events need space (it is also necessarily mathematically taking into account what a false vacuum actually is). So, the idea that space itself can come into being via a quantum fluctuation doesn't agree with anything we know, as all we know tells us that quantum fluctuations require the universe. So, explaining the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation doesn't seem right to me.

Until proved it remains a theory. Krauss points to the universe being flat as necessary to keep conservation of energy with the Big Bang, important observations. Krauss is critical of string theory as lacking proof.

None of that refutes the cold hard fact that quantum fluctuations require a quantum vacuum, and a quantum vacuum requires space with unstable pressure. Therefore, you cannot, and I repeat, cannot explain the universe as being caused by a quantum fluctuation.

Also, Dr. Craig beings up an interesting point. Basically, if the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation, then that means it came from a background space. This space either began, or it didn't. If it began, then this just pushes the question back (where did THAT space come from?), and doesn't solve anything. But, if the space is eternal, then:

"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - William Lane Craig

"This problem proved to be fairly lethal to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were jettisoned twenty years ago and nothing much has been done with them since." - Christopher Isham (cosmologist)
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 10:28:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 12:40:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It doesn't matter what premise you start with, it won't doesn't change the fact that you cannot explain the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations require a background space.

All observations say quantum events need space (it is also necessarily mathematically taking into account what a false vacuum actually is). So, the idea that space itself can come into being via a quantum fluctuation doesn't agree with anything we know, as all we know tells us that quantum fluctuations require the universe. So, explaining the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation doesn't seem right to me.

All that is required for quantum fluctuations is a quantum vacuum. Now, what existed before the Big Bang? People do not understand that space is only finite WITHIN a universe, but when you go out of the universe it is infinite. This is why it is possible for multiple universes to exist at the same time without becoming one universe.

We do have a piece of evidence that there are other universes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...

So, if other universe do exist then there must be a reason why our universe can expand without merging with the other universe. There is space between them.

So, space existing between universes, so how do we explain how a quantum vacuum can exist in that space?

Well, what is nothing? Is nothing the absence of something? What is something?

Our universe's total energy is ZERO. That means that if the entire universe came together to one point that it would no longer consist of matter or energy, which is technically nothing.

So, how does a quantum vacuum come from nothing?

Nothing is a philosophical idea, we do not know if it actually exists in real life, but why can a quantum vacuum exist?

Well, what is a quantum vacuum?
The only REAL difference between nothing and a quantum vacuum is that a quantum vacuum contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of existence. As well as that, a quantum vacuum can be defined to have ZERO energy. The reason that can be said is that at some points it can seem to have a total energy in the negative on a VERY small level for a VERY small amount of time, other times in the positive on VERY small level, but it is more common to be in the positive. This means that it is possible for the total energy of a quantum vacuum to actually equal ZERO as well.

So, particles pop in and out of existence in a quantum vacuum, electromagnetic waves come and go, and energy can sometimes equal ZERO. Now, a quantum vacuum can, at one point in time, have no particles (so no matter), no electromagnetic waves (so no charge), and no energy.

With no matter, no charge, no energy. That is nothing, isn't it? Yet, in that state of nothing, energy, matter, and charge can come and go.

So, if there was nothing it could EASILY become a quantum vacuum. When it is a quantum vacuum it can then have quantum fluctuations. With quantum fluctuations we can have a universe start.

None of that refutes the cold hard fact that quantum fluctuations require a quantum vacuum, and a quantum vacuum requires space with unstable pressure. Therefore, you cannot, and I repeat, cannot explain the universe as being caused by a quantum fluctuation.

Really? Why do you say it needs an unstable pressure? Can you provide a source for that claim? I happen to know some physicists, and I have NEVER heard that it needs an unstable pressure.

Also, Dr. Craig beings up an interesting point. Basically, if the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation, then that means it came from a background space. This space either began, or it didn't. If it began, then this just pushes the question back (where did THAT space come from?), and doesn't solve anything.

Can you tell me what space is? I am not talking about spacetime, what is space? Do not include matter, energy, etc. in your definition. Why does space need a beginning? Is space actually something?

But, if the space is eternal, then:
"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - William Lane Craig

William Lane Craig is NOT a physicist, he is a Christian apologist and analytic philosopher.

What is time? Time, much like space, is finite in a universe, but we do NOT KNOW about the existence of time in the space outside of the universe, do we? He is trying to explain something out of his field, he is NOT an authority about this.

Even if time is infinite in the space outside the universe, it would still be finite relative within a universe. Universes will come and go. Space outside of a universe is also infinite, so, if universes are temporary and space is infinite, why would collide and coalesce with one another? Some might, but, with universes having an end, even if universes "spawning" at every point in the space outside the universe, universes colliding with each other would still be rare.

Do I know if space is infinite outside of a universe? No. Does space have to exist outside of a universe in order for multiple universes to exist at the same time? Yes. Now, if space does exist outside of a universe, what would stop it from being infinite?
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:18:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 12:40:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It doesn't matter what premise you start with, it won't doesn't change the fact that you cannot explain the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations require a background space.

The background space could be eternal, or it is created when a bubble of time appears as a product of statistical fluctation in a higher multiverse that has no continuous time. The paradox you point to is a product of a concept of time that is not necessarily true.

The approach the Krauss and others are taking is to ask if there is any non-magical theory that agrees with known physical laws and known observations.

All observations say quantum events need space (it is also necessarily mathematically taking into account what a false vacuum actually is). So, the idea that space itself can come into being via a quantum fluctuation doesn't agree with anything we know, as all we know tells us that quantum fluctuations require the universe. So, explaining the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, it does not agree with any of our ordinary experience. However, the established facts of quantum physics defy our ordinary experience, as does special and general relativity. All that can done is to get the mathematics to be self-consistent and consistent with what is observed.


Also, Dr. Craig beings up an interesting point. Basically, if the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation, then that means it came from a background space. This space either began, or it didn't. If it began, then this just pushes the question back (where did THAT space come from?), and doesn't solve anything. But, if the space is eternal, then:

"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - William Lane Craig

Craigs assumption is that time is a universal that does not stop or start. A universe may have time that starts and stops. The multiverse may not have continuous time. But indeed there may be an infinite number of universes that have come and gone, meaning an infinite number exist. That is possible if they are separated in different dimensions. (Note that Krauss rejects that.) However, quantum phenomina are, well, quantized, so there does not have to be an infinite number. One theory is that a new universe is created at certain points in time, so there is a very large, but finite, number.

"This problem proved to be fairly lethal to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were jettisoned twenty years ago and nothing much has been done with them since." - Christopher Isham (cosmologist)

No, that was before multiverse concepts were developed that resolve the paradox.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:43:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 11:18:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/14/2014 12:40:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It doesn't matter what premise you start with, it won't doesn't change the fact that you cannot explain the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations require a background space.

The background space could be eternal, or it is created when a bubble of time appears as a product of statistical fluctation in a higher multiverse that has no continuous time. The paradox you point to is a product of a concept of time that is not necessarily true.

The approach the Krauss and others are taking is to ask if there is any non-magical theory that agrees with known physical laws and known observations.

All observations say quantum events need space (it is also necessarily mathematically taking into account what a false vacuum actually is). So, the idea that space itself can come into being via a quantum fluctuation doesn't agree with anything we know, as all we know tells us that quantum fluctuations require the universe. So, explaining the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, it does not agree with any of our ordinary experience. However, the established facts of quantum physics defy our ordinary experience, as does special and general relativity. All that can done is to get the mathematics to be self-consistent and consistent with what is observed.


Also, Dr. Craig beings up an interesting point. Basically, if the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation, then that means it came from a background space. This space either began, or it didn't. If it began, then this just pushes the question back (where did THAT space come from?), and doesn't solve anything. But, if the space is eternal, then:

"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - William Lane Craig

Craigs assumption is that time is a universal that does not stop or start. A universe may have time that starts and stops. The multiverse may not have continuous time. But indeed there may be an infinite number of universes that have come and gone, meaning an infinite number exist. That is possible if they are separated in different dimensions. (Note that Krauss rejects that.) However, quantum phenomina are, well, quantized, so there does not have to be an infinite number. One theory is that a new universe is created at certain points in time, so there is a very large, but finite, number.

"This problem proved to be fairly lethal to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were jettisoned twenty years ago and nothing much has been done with them since." - Christopher Isham (cosmologist)

No, that was before multiverse concepts were developed that resolve the paradox.

Well, then you would have to appeal to meta-quantum fluctuations, that we have no evidence for. Then you have just left the field of science...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 5:48:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 11:18:11 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 3/14/2014 12:40:46 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
It doesn't matter what premise you start with, it won't doesn't change the fact that you cannot explain the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation. Quantum fluctuations require a background space.

The background space could be eternal, or it is created when a bubble of time appears as a product of statistical fluctation in a higher multiverse that has no continuous time. The paradox you point to is a product of a concept of time that is not necessarily true.

The approach the Krauss and others are taking is to ask if there is any non-magical theory that agrees with known physical laws and known observations.

All observations say quantum events need space (it is also necessarily mathematically taking into account what a false vacuum actually is). So, the idea that space itself can come into being via a quantum fluctuation doesn't agree with anything we know, as all we know tells us that quantum fluctuations require the universe. So, explaining the universe as being due to a quantum fluctuation doesn't seem right to me.

Yes, it does not agree with any of our ordinary experience. However, the established facts of quantum physics defy our ordinary experience, as does special and general relativity. All that can done is to get the mathematics to be self-consistent and consistent with what is observed.

No, it has nothing to do with not agreeing with every day experience, it doesn't agree with quantum mechanics lol QM says quantum fluctuations happen in space. So, you cannot explain space by using QM.



Also, Dr. Craig beings up an interesting point. Basically, if the universe came into being due to a quantum fluctuation, then that means it came from a background space. This space either began, or it didn't. If it began, then this just pushes the question back (where did THAT space come from?), and doesn't solve anything. But, if the space is eternal, then:

"Within any finite interval of time there is a positive probability of such a fluctuation occurring at any point in space. Thus, given infinite past time, universes will eventually be spawned at every point in the primordial vacuum, and, as they expand, they will begin to collide and coalesce with one another. Thus, given infinite past time, we should by now be observing an infinitely old universe, not a relatively young one." - William Lane Craig

Craigs assumption is that time is a universal that does not stop or start. A universe may have time that starts and stops. The multiverse may not have continuous time. But indeed there may be an infinite number of universes that have come and gone, meaning an infinite number exist. That is possible if they are separated in different dimensions. (Note that Krauss rejects that.) However, quantum phenomina are, well, quantized, so there does not have to be an infinite number. One theory is that a new universe is created at certain points in time, so there is a very large, but finite, number.

"This problem proved to be fairly lethal to Vacuum Fluctuation Models; hence, these models were jettisoned twenty years ago and nothing much has been done with them since." - Christopher Isham (cosmologist)

No, that was before multiverse concepts were developed that resolve the paradox.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/14/2014 11:11:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/14/2014 5:43:50 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Well, then you would have to appeal to meta-quantum fluctuations, that we have no evidence for. Then you have just left the field of science...

No, it's legitimate to formulate a theory first, then test it. There is no other way, is there? The theory fails at the outset if it does not agree with the accumulated body of evidence that exists. The first thing a cosmological theory must do is agree with what is known about the Big Bang. However, it remains unproved until it makes accurate novel predictions. As far as I know, no one claims that multiverse theory has been proved.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2014 6:55:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 3/13/2014 2:12:08 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 2:05:04 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:55:42 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:51:35 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 3/13/2014 1:45:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Or "by" a quantum fluctuation.

I don't actually see much of an issue for how the substance behind the laws of QM (whether it be vibrating strings, or whatever), if simple enough, could come ex nihalo.

It's an issue because "nothing" has no potentiality. Thus, there is no potential for anything quantum mechanical. Also, if the laws of QM can come into being ex nihilo, why not literally everything?

Seems possible, but much more likely simple, as producing more and more complex effects requires increasingly more favorable luck. Pretty much what QM says, essentially anything, such as the Statue of Liberty waving it's hand, is possible, but becomes increasingly more unlikely as the complexity increases.



There's a reason why species don't just appear by chance. It is theoretically possible (nothing in the laws of physics prevents this), but the gradual slope from simplicity>complexity is much more likely.

But the idea that something can come from nothing seems stupid to me, almost as dumb as the idea that space-time can come into being as a quantum fluctuation, as that itself requires space-time.

Last year that was your position, and anyone that disagreed with you seemed stupid and dumb. There are probably a dozen threads out there where you argued just what Sswdwm is arguing....and as always, calling the opposing view stupid and dumb.

Seems you are calling yourself stupid here.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater