Teeee!!! Our universe creates, extends spacetime, everywhere it goes.
Kaaaaaaaay!!! Why couldn’t a spacetime exist before our own?
Not by itself. In isolation. Sorry if you don’t mean that. And yes, of course, the cosmic foam comes with, is coterminous, coeval, congruent with, spacetime. What am I missing here? Seriously.
Kaaaaaayyyyy!!! Why not???
It’s meaningless. It’s the sound of one hand clapping. Space-time always has something filling it, everything occupies space-time. There is no excess space-time beyond matter (stuff: including energy, fields, virtual particles), there is no matter outside space-time, no space-time outside matter. The multiverse zero-point energy field occupies infinite space-time from eternity with universe bubbles of space-time forming from it. Where’s the spare space-time?
So why couldn’t there be this spacetime prior to the beginning of our universe?
What do you mean I “won’t even accept” it? You’re acting like I’m being unreasonable, when you’re the one who literally thinks a singularity can emerge from the quantum field despite the fact that the only thing or evidence we’ve ever seen from it is these tiny virtual particles appearing for a fraction of a second and then dissipating back into energy again.
Notice that I asked about our universe, not spacetime.
Dude … the universe is spacetime. There’s no quantum “field” without spacetime because a field is a region of spacetime. The quantum region of spacetime, therefore, cannot be prior to spacetime, and cannot cause its existence.
I have no idea if that is what happened, but I also recognize that particles can spontaneously emerge from a quantum vacuum. I see no reason to dogmatically toss the idea out.
So why couldn’t there have been a spacetime that preceded our universe?
Er, no reason. But not ‘our’ spacetime. Not ‘this’ spacetime we’re in, a vesicle, a diverticulum, a bubble caused by a ‘flaw’ - a quantum perturbation - in the multiverse substrate, the zero-point energy field. Which also operates within our spacetime, but only spawns virtual particles. I suppose one could argue that there is only infinite, eternal spacetime which ‘implodes’ into universes through one class of quantum perturbation or fizzles with virtual particles through another. Hmmm.
I have no idea if that is what happened, but I also recognize that particles can spontaneously emerge from a quantum vacuum. I see no reason to dogmatically toss the idea out.
With every comment, you show you don’t understand the science even a teeny tiny bit and so always write these pseudoscientific things. There’s no “quantum vacuum” because the word “vacuum” implies there’s nothing there. But the whole quantum FIELD is bustling with energy. By using the word “vacuum”, you’ve snuck in the pseudoscience that something is coming out of nothing.
Secondly, we don’t know if it’s “spontaneous”. You’ve snuck in that assumption as well. Plenty of models have everything as caused.
Finally, there’s no “dogmatic” tossing out. It’s laughable to call this dogma. What you’ve done is you’ve taken a phenomena where energy briefly converts to matter for a split second then goes back to energy in a region of spacetime, and you’ve concluded that maybe a singularity can permanently emerge before spacetime even existed (i.e. without a field) and therefore cause the universe. That is complete pseudoscience. It’s akin to looking at evolution and saying “maybe fruit loops can evolve into a singularity”.
So why couldn’t there have been a spacetime that preceded our universe?
I just answered that. Are you going to keep driving the same question down my throat after I keep answering it? This is a pseudoscientific question. Spacetime and the universe are the same thing. And yet the question gibberishly assumes they’re different. You’re asking me why the universe couldn’t precede the universe, basically, which is just logical inanity.
It’s possible . . . and I think that is about as far as we can take it.
Phew! Glad that’s sorted.
Thanks for debunking yourself. Quoting your article;
According to present-day understanding of what is called the vacuum state or the quantum vacuum, it is “by no means a simple empty space”. According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
This is the second paragraph in the article you quoted. So in the second paragraph, the article qualifies that the name “quantum vacuum” is a complete misnomer. Thanks!
What are you talking about? It’s right so it’s wrong. Because. Uh huh. Nobody is right even when they agree with you. Right. NO!!! WRONG!!!
It’s wrong. It’s a misnomer. According to your source. There is no vacuum.
WRONG!!!
BTW, plenty of thing are mis-named in science. I don’t know why you’re so shocked about this one in particular.
Then I guess all those quantum physicists are also wrong:
Not even wrong.