The theory of nothing

[PB666]

I don't know if this link is going to work or not. I dont even wantt to see the original paper.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/612340/Origin-of-the-universe-riddle-solved-by-Canadian-physicists-and-er-it-wasn-t-God?utm_source=traffic.outbrain&utm_medium=traffic.outbrain&utm_term=traffic.outbrain&utm_content=traffic.outbrain&utm_campaign=traffic.outbrain

Here's is the theory, once upon a undefinable time, there was a unit of quantum space. That quantum space had all the fluctuations everyone expects it to have then one day accidently inflation

the inflation trapped quantum inflation.

Dont shoot the messenger

Edited October 17, 2015 by PB666

[Noname117]

What I'm even more sad about is the links to other articles shown by that one. So much clickbait.

I'm now wondering if I want to see some of the worst ones and just weep.

[PB666]

What I'm even more sad about is the links to other articles shown by that one. So much clickbait.

I'm now wondering if I want to see some of the worst ones and just weep.

Yeah, becareful, particularly on the hand held.

Keywords, double relativity, plancks time and length.

The issue in my mind, what caused inflation.

Edited October 17, 2015 by PB666

[Gaarst]

Opened link in new tab, read title of article, closed tab.

[insert_name]

such clickbaity crap, media these days is so annoying

[Waterlimon]

My theory is that once upon a time there was everything and there is still everything because time is a human construct, and one of the things is the universe, and we are in the universe instead of some insanely complicated thing BECAUSE the universe is one of the most efficient structures that can give rise to life COMPARED to its complexity (sure complexity EMERGES from the universe, but the fundamental rules that it follows are much simpler), so there are more of "universe" contained in "everything" than there are "overcomplicated thing where potatoes spontaneously spawn everywhere".

[PB666]

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.6091

[SomeGuy123]

But even the "and then suddenly from nothing sprang the universe" requires something to have properties at all..

[problemecium]

I understand this to mean the Kraken created the universe. Works for me xD

[Rakaydos]

This theory simply requires a statitical impossibility to happen in  truely infinite time. It doesnt matter how unlikely the universe's creation was, it happend eventually.

[PB666]

For the pre inflation singularity, time is irrelevant. The fact that spacetime is not resolvable really creates a delimna in understanding the probailities because nothing could be a prestate or everything could be a prestate (for example a collapse of a previous universe to a single point), though now im beginning to doubt that the second is possible given quantum fluctuations and the matter-antimatter imbalance.

The problem with quantum vacuum instability is that the nothing state before the temporal amorphous pre-inflation state was almost certainly diiferent than any state approaching empty in the current visible universe. Fields permeate our universe, but how can they propogate before for the initial inflation, there is no precendent. 

An example of what could happen, supposed that gravity is limited by quantum tunneling, and there is disjoining across extreme distaces that we cannot percieve. Some entangled gravitational interactions would exist between comiving space time moving away frome each other faster than the speed of light, and partcles ejected from the most poweful supernova at opposing ends be traveling away from each other near to spped of light in thier comiving refence frame. Remember that the graviational constant is the constant that shows variation several magnitudes more than the other fundementatal constants, this constant could be locally sensitive to the extremes states we cannot perceive. The pressure to keep quantum entanglement from breaking down could evacuation the center of inflation to a degree that it triggers a subsequent big bang, and this second event could be the cause of the dark energy. 

Possibilies can exist because the prestate is not defined, this is why its always easier to stop the hypothesis with some line of differential uncertainty, for example at the gravity/ quantum gravity boundary in the unification theory, in this case we can say since quantum gravity has never been proven or defined, then anything that happens before spacetime resolves cannot be defined. This boundary is set in experimental particle physics.

The observational boundary is the CNBR, which is likely to give way at some point to the preionization nuetrino boundary. Because of black swan hypothetical perspective i prefer to use the observational over the theoretical implications of experimental particle physics. One of the main problem with pre CNBR modeling is that it is impossible to show that all of the universal constants remain constant, for example that spacetime models can be used at all before the energetic stability (meaning net energy additions have significantly slowed down) in the universe depending on the model. This is rather contentious point for me because the visible universe exhibits euclidian geometry, it is not curved in one direction more so than another and densites of matter relative to distance milky way is most uniform at the extreme distances and to the CMBR. Neither center or edge is deducable, which also means we can only ascert a lower size limit to the universe at inflation, not a upper size limit which sum of mass*c^2 + energy is also undefinable, more so with dark energy. 

So to the point, sure there could be everything from nothing, but in science we ask for proof. As i state above there are significant uncertainties in modelling the pre CMBR universe, and so any such hypothesis are based on conjecture and should be rejected by referees or redirected to journals of theoretical modelling.