Before the Big Bang? (Origins)

by dhw, Thursday, July 24, 2014, 19:33 (3773 days ago) @ David Turell

dhw: I don't see how a virtual quantum vacuum can produce transient particles which constitute the real world (see below), and I don't know why there has to have been a vacuum of any kind.-DAVID: This has been your problem all along, why you couldn't follow Kastner. It is established quantum theory that our space is a virtual vacuum, that is, although it appears to be empty, there are quantum particles popping in and out of existence at all times. Threfore the use of the word virtual.-I have had several problems all along. A vacuum is “space that is devoid of matter” (Wikipedia), or “a volume of space that contains no particles of any sort” (Penguin Dictionary of Science). As I understand it, ALL matter pops in and out of existence: quantum particles are fleeting, and when our Planet Earth eventually disappears, in relation to eternity its billions of years' existence will also be a pop. If there are particles of any kind (“potential” particles are another of my problems), there is no vacuum, and I would regard the term “virtual vacuum” as what Davies calls a verbal trick, but if that's the accepted expression, so be it. Thank you for explaining it.
 
DAVID: ...Before the BB was there only a void? Not likely.
dhw: Precisely my argument. I take void and vacuum to be synonymous (is that a mistake?) and have asked why there has to have been a vacuum of any kind.-DAVID: Ah, the nubbin of your problem! You are very mistaken. I've explained a virtual vaccuum, which is not nothing. A void is a true nothing, no virtual particles popping in and out. This is why clear thinking philosophers of science have laughed at Krauss and Stenger.-You have explained that a virtual vacuum is not a vacuum, but it's clear from your comment that a void and a vacuum are the same thing - no particles of any kind. You regard a void as “unlikely”, and so you regard a vacuum as “unlikely”. We are in agreement.
 
dhw: I see nothing but fuzzy logic on all sides. What is illogical about the suggestion with which this post begins, that if our own universe is a manifestation of energy transformed into matter, the process of energy forming matter may have been going on for ever, regardless of quantum this and quantum that? 
DAVID: With clear understanding of virtual vaccuum and true void, things are not so fuzzy. Actually you are correct in that we have no idea about the past befroe the bb. BB's could have been going on ad infinitum.-Thank you.-DAVID: I plead that you accept current quantum theory. Otherwise you will remain muddled in your thinking. Both atheists and theists are using quantum theory from the same basis of knowledge. Of course we reach different conclusions.-I have no problem accepting that particles of all kinds pop in and out of existence, and that in the quantum world, which is integral to our reality, their behaviour is currently inexplicable. But...”since quantum weirdness apparently allows you to say God is in there, and allows the atheists to say God is not in there, I am suggesting that it only adds to the general confusion.”-DAVID: No, it does not. I view you as very confused.-And you are right. I can't help but believe that Stephen Hawking understands a thousand times more about quantum theory than I do. He claims that “science makes God unnecessary”, and that “the laws of physics can explain the universe without the need for a creator”. You draw the opposite conclusion. So how does quantum weirdness, which nobody understands, contribute to ironing out the confusion?-dhw: Logic tells me you can't have a before without time. I also believe in cause and effect, which again require time, and I accept the quantum wildness but cannot for the life of me see how you or anyone else can extrapolate from it any convincing theory about the origin of the universe.-DAVID: If space and time appear at the bb, you logic tells me the bb came from nothing! Where is your belief in cause and effect now? I have no problem with a timeless 'before'. True stasis is timeless.-I have argued all along that we have no idea when space and time appeared. We only know of space and time since the BB. Yes, true stasis would be timeless, but you have agreed that “BBs could have been going on ad infinitum”. So why assume “true stasis” and timelessness? Is this really more likely in your opinion than an endless process of energy transforming itself into matter, or your eternally conscious God actually doing something throughout past eternity rather than having nothing to think about except himself?