Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You are literally arguing with Alexander Vilenkin. It was his statement that I posted.There is no such thing as "proof" in physics. It is a mathematical term and depends on premises. Premises in math are fine. Premises in physics are often transient and change with new observations or experiments.
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
You said it here. It is from creationwiki.orgCan you link to that post where I cited a creationist site? Because I believe you are confusing me for JamesBond, bro.
You should apologize for that. But I'm not going to hold my breath. You seem to have your feathers ruffled.
Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)Incorrect. I got my beliefs about the universe not being eternal into the past from the work of Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. So you are arguing with them. I didn't discover it. They did.
Ah... I didn't catch that. I was looking for a link to their work WHICH IS NOT CREATION SCIENCE.You said it here. It is from creationwiki.org
That's not what Vilinken says here.Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)
However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a beginning.
Better?You said it here. It is from creationwiki.org
I am not saying there is no such thing as a whatever before the big bang, I'm just saying that you are posting things that you don't understand.Considering all the evidence we have I don't see how it can be any other way than the universe began and was created from nothing. The criticizing of my thinking ability by an anonymous poster on the internet isn't going to make the overwhelming evidence for the universe being created from nothing go away. And this is especially true when said poster has never presented a competing proposal and explained how it satisfies all of the evidence.
This is getting pretty silly. You didn't even post the link. Do you understand what not eternal into the past means or is that me being condescending?Two of the authors disagree with you. This is from Wikipedia, not the creationist site you cited. (My bold face)
However, Vilenkin and co-author Delia Perlov have also stated that, in their view, the theorem tells us only that inflation had a beginning and not that the universe had a beginning.
Like what?I am not saying there is no such thing as a whatever before the big bang, I'm just saying that you are posting things that you don't understand.
If you posted it, it becomes your argument.You are literally arguing with Alexander Vilenkin. It was his statement that I posted.
But I suspect the proof he is talking about is the mathematical proof that the universe began being created from nothing.
And I defended it, no? Or would my pointing out that he was describing a mathematical proof and then sharing the paper with the mathematical proof condescending to you?If you posted it, it becomes your argument.
An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given. In this paper, we present such a proof based on the analytic solutions of the Wheeler-DeWitt equation (WDWE). Explicit solutions of the WDWE for the special operator ordering factor p = −2 (or 4) show that, once a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially no matter whether the bubble is closed, flat or open. The exponential expansion will end when the bubble becomes large and thus the early universe appears. With the de Broglie-Bohm quantum trajectory theory, we show explicitly that it is the quantum potential that plays the role of the cosmological constant and provides the power for the exponential expansion of the true vacuum bubble. So it is clear that the birth of the early universe completely depends on the quantum nature of the theory.
I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic
Not in that video he didn't. Care to site the time mark?Your own source says you are full of shit!!!
“Mr. Stenger asked Mr. Vilenkin the following question, Does your theorem prove that the universe must have had a beginning? Vilenkin replied, No.
Covered what exactly?I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic
Ed's a massive troll. Good luck hitching your wagon to him.I don't think so. I already covered it. And so did edthecynic
Just follow the conversation trail back.Covered what exactly?
The fact that you can't state it and then try to fake it says a lot.Just follow the conversation trail back.
Your tactics arguing against the science of the universe beginning and being created from nothing remind me of JamesBond's tactics arguing against evolution.Just follow the conversation trail back.
