The Second Law of Thermodynamics Precludes an Infinite Acting Universe

[ding]

Why? You wouldn't understand it any more than the paper you linked which proved energy is NOT a nothing, debunking their own unscientific paper.

From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time

Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"

When you get your paper published let me know.

 

[edthecynic]

When you get your paper published let me know.

You first proving energy is a nothing!

 

[ding]

You first!

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

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...

arxiv.org

Now it's your turn.

 

[ding]

 

[edthecynic]

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

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...

arxiv.org

Now it's your turn.

So now you are claiming YOU published the paper I thoroughly debunked!
PLAGIARIST!

From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time

Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"

 

[ding]

So now you are claiming YOU published the paper I thoroughly debunked!
PLAGIARIST!

From the link you don't understand a word of:
With the development of quantum cosmology theory, it has been suggested that the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing, where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time

Notice energy is not listed as a "nothing!"

I know it's upsetting to you that the universe began and was created from nothing, but that's just the way it is, Eddie.

 

[edthecynic]

I know it's upsetting to you that the universe began and was created from nothing, but that's just the way it is, Eddie.

I know it's upsetting to you that energy is NOT nothing, but until you publish your paper proving energy IS nothing you will have to learn how to live with the unassailable fact from nothing comes.

 

[ding]

I know it's upsetting to you that energy is NOT nothing, but until you publish your paper proving energy IS nothing you will have to learn how to live with the unassailable fact from nothing comes.

 

[edthecynic]

You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.

His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!

 

[Wuwei]

You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.

His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!

You are right. Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all.

 

[ding]

You have shown this same BULLSHIT video at least 100 times and every time I debunked it and you just run away to post it in another thread, and you still have the same problem to solve when you publish your paper.

His "nothing" consists of 2 somethings in equal amounts, positive ENERGY and negative ENERGY!!! So until you can prove that ENERGY is a nothing, and your own link admits ENERGY is NOT a nothing, you are up shits creek without a paddle!!!!!

Actually it depends upon paired production, dummy. And no, you have not refuted anything.

 

[ding]

You are right. Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all.

The net energy is zero. It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero. The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe. It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity.

You do realize you aren't arguing with me, right? You are arguing with Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.

Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science

creationwiki.org

The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin singularity theorem (or BGV theorem) was developed in 2003 by three leading cosmologists; Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin. Subsequently in recent years since, the BGV theorem has become widely respected and accepted within the physics community.

 

[ding]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

Alex Vilenkin, Many Worlds In One: The Search for Other Universes (Hill and Wang 2006), pg. 176

 

[Wuwei]

The net energy is zero. It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero. The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe. It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity.

For god's sake everyone knows what net means.
That false condescending attitude will get you nowhere.

You do realize you aren't arguing with me, right? You are arguing with Arvind Borde, Alan Guth and Alex Vilenkin.

No I am arguing with you.
You cited a creationist site which makes your eyes light up. It stresses the importance of the theorem to creationism. The theorem only has transient value and any validity would be compromised with the quantization of gravity. Besides that, there are other theories that are equally viable. Your favorite cosmology theorem applies the weak energy condition to dark matter, and somewhat brushes over the fact that dark energy is 70% of the universe energy and it's dynamic properties can only be guessed, (which they do.)

Yes, there may have been nothing before the big bang, but it is not known yet.
You are not thinking outside the box.
.

 

[Wuwei]

"It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning."

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.

 

[ding]

For god's sake everyone knows what net means.
That false condescending attitude will get you nowhere.

There was no condescension, false or otherwise in my statement, "The net energy is zero. It's like in statics where the sum of the forces equals zero. The sum of the forces equaling zero does not mean there are no forces or the forces are zero. There absolutely is positive energy in the universe. It is exactly compensated by the negative energy of gravity."

That was me correcting you. Aren't I entitled to correct someone who misstates my beliefs?

Your statement that "Ding is confused and thinks that total energy zero means no energy at all" implied you didn't understand the net energy of the universe is zero because you could not have gotten that from anything I have written.

This is what I have always written in these forums about the creation of the universe from nothing...

In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.​

So... where did you get the idea that I was confused that total energy zero means no energy at all?

Can you link to a post of mine that said that? Because I can link to multiple posts where I explain it very clearly that the positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter.

 

[ding]

You cited a creationist site which makes your eyes light up.

Can 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.

 

[ding]

No I am arguing with you.

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.

 

[ding]

Besides that, there are other theories that are equally viable. Your favorite cosmology theorem applies the weak energy condition to dark matter, and somewhat brushes over the fact that dark energy is 70% of the universe energy and it's dynamic properties can only be guessed, (which they do.)

Equally viable, huh? Why don't you pick the one you believe is most viable and tell me what it says about the origin of the universe. Specifically, did it begin? And was it created from pre-existing matter and how it created the CMB.

Fair enough?

 

[ding]

Yes, there may have been nothing before the big bang, but it is not known yet.
You are not thinking outside the box.

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.