The sheer pseudoscientific dishonesty from you is reaching incredible levels. As I literally just quoted to Klax, the very second paragraph of that Wiki article says;
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.
And the quote YOU give also doesn’t say zero energy. It says the LOWEST POSSIBLE ENERGY. The lowest possible energy isn’t ZERO energy. Just like the lowest possible temperature is not ZERO Kelvin, but just barely above that. I haven’t ever seen someone so insistent on this pseudoscience as you. But you just keep trying, just to be refuted by people who actually understand the subject.
And yet physicists call it a quantum vacuum, do they not?
And physicists also say that the name they use is wrong because there’s energy. I also noticed you evaded my whole response earlier. This is everything you decided to leave unaddressed;
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”.
You: So why couldn’t there have been a spacetime that preceded the 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.
But they use it anyway. I am using their term and their definition.
Do you think this is pseudoscience?
The universe had a beginning. Why couldn’t there be a spacetime that preceded that beginning?
But they use it anyway. I am using their term and their definition.
No you don’t. You’re assuming that the non-vacuum is an actual vacuum.
Do you think this is pseudoscience?
Yes. I’m not sure why you think Wikipedia is now the arbiter of science. It is obviously pseudoscience. “Energy briefly converts to matter than goes back to being energy in a field, therefore this might explain the beginning of existence” is pseudoscience.
The universe had a beginning. Why couldn’t there be a spacetime that preceded that beginning?
Because the universe is spacetime. I’ve now answered this question three times and you continue to blatantly ignore it. You’re asking me why X can’t precede X. Because they’re the same thing. Could you have been born before you were born? There’s your answer.
Time itself started at the same ‘time’, t sub naught, that space, matter and energy did. There is no ‘before’. Time is the medium in which change happens – if there is nothing existent to change, there is no time. Is that your take?
It’s true that the word “before” is inapplicable to the beginning of time. It’s difficult, though not impossible, to find words to describe the cause of the universe without using this temporal kind of language. Ultimately, God can cause the universe into existence as God’s causation of the universe’s existence would be simultaneous to the coming into existence of the universe. That is because they are actually the same event, and therefore can be simultaneous.
How can the same event as itself be simultaneous? To what?
Where do they say that?
Wrong. As QM is acausal you are confusing causality with determinism.
Woah, brother, you don’t need to write three different comments responding to me. You can edit the original one to include points you think of later.
How can the same event as itself be simultaneous? To what?
Err … this is a confusing question. It turns out that the cause (God bringing the universe into existence) is identical to the effect (the universe coming into existence). Since the cause and effect are in fact the same, singular event, we can say that this is a process of simultaneous causation.
Where do they say that?
Plenty of places. I have no need to cite the obvious.
Wrong. As QM is acausal you are confusing causality with determinism.
QM isn’t acausal, as is popularly asserted.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2017.0313
Wrong. As you are in your use of the term pseudoscience. Nothing @T_aquaticus said was pseudoscientific. Saying that God made the universe is when meant woodenly literally. God is a bit bigger, older and smarter than that.
Give a real world example, not one from Alice in Wonderland, where cause is effect or effect is cause.
‘God bringing the universe into existence’ and ‘the universe coming into existence’ are each cause and effect.
I am making (cause) a cup of tea (effect).
A cup of tea (effect) is being made (cause).
Obviously I’m not as I am typing and I’ve finished my tea. So I’m wrong.
‘I am making a cup of tea.’ is a cause of what?
‘A cup of tea is being made.’ is an effect of what?
x is not the cause of x.is not the effect of x is not…
That is an opinion piece with no dialectical antithetical weight against the consensual synthesis.
No vacuum ever encountered is pure, absolute, true. All scientists and hoover manufacturers know this. The usage is correct, as it always is in language. Except yours which is unreal. Aquinas, Shakespeare in Macbeth and Hamlet, and Wittgenstein all knew this.
In other words you can’t put up. In other words you can’t find a scientist who expresses themselves as such as idiolectically as you.
There, my three in a row.
Nothing @T_aquaticus said was pseudoscientific.
Plenty of it was, especially his idea that spacetime could precede the universe (ignoring the fact that they’re the same thing) and that virtual particles in the quantum field somehow show how a singularity could have come about.
Give a real world example, not one from Alice in Wonderland, where cause is effect or effect is cause.
This is a unique event since it’s the cause of the beginning, and so the one cause-effect that must be simultaneous. After all, there’s no other options for the cause, because time didn’t exist and it couldn’t have been through time. It is quite possible that the cause of the beginning is the only simultaneous cause in the natural world. Or at least causing the natural world.
That is an opinion piece with no dialectical antithetical weight against the consensual synthesis.
Please spare me the gibberish. The paper I cited was from a widely accredited journal that is published by the Royal Society. What’s more, the author, Giacomo D’Ariano is a professor of physics at the University of Pavia and is internationally renowned for his work. Google Scholar shows he’s been cited 12,000 times, and 5,000 of those are from the last few years. He developed a whole field of quantum physics. This purely dishonest dismissal really crosses with my patience.
In other words you can’t put up. In other words you can’t find a scientist who expresses themselves as such as idiolectically as you.
So I’ll have to waste even more time. As you might recall, it’s stated in the very Wikipedia page you quoted. Also, Sean Carroll. Yadda yadda.
There, my three in a row.
It really was just a recommendation dude. No need to get all fussed up about it.
Wrong. That isn’t pseudoscience.
Is for your unique real world example. Wrong. Doubly wrong and not even wrong.
Is English your third language?
Wrong. Be a good boy and show your workings.
It’s pseudoscience. I take note that you did not address any of my demonstrations earlier for the pseudoscientific status.
Is English your third language?
I have noted that you inundate your comments with needlessly big words to disguise the fact that you’re not saying much. For example:
You: That is an opinion piece with no dialectical antithetical weight against the consensual synthesis.
Translation: That paper is just his opinion. I believe what the consensus says!
Of course, it’s also not the consensus the QM is acausal. There are bajillions of papers describing all sorts of causal processes in QM, including the very interesting notion of retrocausality.
Wrong. Be a good boy and show your workings.
You already have the Wiki link. I frankly don’t have the Carroll reference saved but I don’t see why it’s necessary when your own source agrees with me.
Show that they do or get off the pot sonny. Oh, and in case you didn’t realise. You’re wrong.
Show that what does what? Can you not gaslight and address the paper I cited earlier by D’Aranio?
Look at that, another paper:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys2930
And what’s the first sentence?
“Traditionally, quantum theory assumes the existence of a fixed background causal structure.”
Wow! Almost like you were duped by internet atheists on the idea that QM is acausal so that you could escape … mmm … unwanted implications.