C'mon, you can do better than that, taz.More word soup. I'm full already, lol.
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.
C'mon, you can do better than that, taz.More word soup. I'm full already, lol.
."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. "
was there something left out ...
.where “nothing” means there is neither matter nor space or time ...
." once a small true vacuum bubble is created "
I can't help you if you don't understand the difference between a false vacuum where paired particles pop into existence annihilate each other leaving only radiation behind versus a quantum tunneling event where 2 billion and one times the matter of the universe pops into existence with the two billions times the matter of the universe annihilating itself thereby creating the background radiation and causing the remaining matter which is the universe itself to begin expanding and cooling..
you did not answer the question -
.
.
can we guess - - howabout, energy.
.
oh
.
"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. "
.
.
once upon a time ... the bubble pooped - - bfd.
.
the article is an explanation for the successful cyclical event - not what caused it, so simple ... swirling.
If that stuff was created along with 5% of the universe we understand and it obviously was then it certainly does have something to do with itWhich has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the universe, just the present expansion of the universe. So why do you keep bringing it up to dismiss the universe being created from nothing? And continue to ignore the question of how the background radiation was created?
I don't believe that's how they say it was. If I understand them correctly it is continuously created as the universe expands.If that stuff was created along with 5% of the universe we understand and it obviously was then it certainly does have something to do with it
Except we can't say that dark matter or dark energy are either of those things.I don't believe that's how they say it was. If I understand them correctly it is continuously created as the universe expands.
But if it was created when the universe began then it was created exactly the same way... as sub atomic particles; both matter and anti-matter sub atomic particles.
Which is why it is weird that you even bring it up when discussion the origin of the universe. I guess it's convenient for you to ignore the overwhelming data for the creation of the universe from nothing if you have something to distract you from the massive holes in your unbelief.Except we can't say that dark matter or dark energy are either of those things.
In fact they might not even be matter or energy for all we know.
if 95% of the universe that we know nothing about was created at the same time the other 5% were then we can't say with any certainty how the universe came to be.Which is why it is weird that you even bring it up when discussion the origin of the universe. I guess it's convenient for you to ignore the overwhelming data for the creation of the universe from nothing if you have something to distract you from the massive holes in your unbelief.
No. The background radiation is from the universe being created from nothing.if 95% of the universe that we know nothing about was created at the same time the other 5% were then we can't say with any certainty how the universe came to be.
The BG radiation that you keep harping about is only a result of the 5% of matter and energy we can observe.
What we call dark matter emits no radiation we can observe and we have no clues as to what dark energy is.
You are so arrogant that you can't admit that we might not know everything about the universe
No. I am only arrogant enough to believe the overwhelming amount data we do have for the origin of the universe. I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the data I know about just because you don't understand dark matter or any of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe.You are so arrogant that you can't admit that we might not know everything about the universe
Except for the 95% of the universe that doesn't emit any radiation at allNo. The background radiation is from the universe being created from nothing.
5% is not overwhelmingNo. I am only arrogant enough to believe the overwhelming amount data we do have for the origin of the universe. I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss the data I know about just because you don't understand dark matter or any of the scientific evidence for the origin of the universe.
Rather pointless, as usual. Fortunately, non-religioners are on the winning side of hyper-religious loonery because we are free of religious oppression by the government or anyone else enforcing a particular belief. The hyper-religious parrot the slogan that ''science'ism" is atheism and therefore both are to be reviled. The favored target of the hyper-religious is biological evolution because evolution, (or evilution) because evolution is confimed and supported by complimentary disciplines of science. Evolution is not a ''belief''. It is a supported explanation of the evidence for natural processes.Colin norris seems bitter because he IS bitter. Atheists are far more pessimistic than believers, on average. Science, that magic potion, has determined such things time and again.
As to questioning our faith, "Israel" means to struggle with God.
Jesus Himself said, "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken me."
Struggle is part of life. Children struggle with parents and parents with children. Husbands and wives struggle with each other despite their deep and abiding love, one for the other.
Atheists simply throw crap up on every wall and hope some of it will stick.
So you should ignore the signature radiation of the creation of the universe and the only way it could have been created?Except for the 95% of the universe that doesn't emit any radiation at all
Let's debate this in the bull ring.5% is not overwhelming
It is only the signature radiation of the inception of 5% of the universe. We have no idea when the other 95% was created.So you should ignore the signature radiation of the creation of the universe and the only way it could have been created?
Who told you that?It is only the signature radiation of the inception of 5% of the universe. We have no idea when the other 95% was created.
^dunning effect
Who told you that?
Do you have a link that says that?Since dark matter and energy emit no radiation whatsoever they would not be the cause of any BG radiation.
For all you know what we call dark matter and energy which may be neither matter nor energy at all were here before the universe inflated into being therefore the universe may not have come from nothing.