Well, probably not, but …
How is this possible? It’s like the Universe itself doesn’t understand our idea of “nothing” at all; if we were to remove all the quanta of energy from our Universe, leaving behind only empty space, we would immediately expect that the Universe would be at absolute zero: with no energetic particles anywhere to be found. Yet that’s not the case at all. No matter how “empty” we artificially make the expanding Universe, the fact that it’s expanding would still spontaneously and unavoidably generate radiation. Even arbitrarily far into the future, or all the way back before the hot Big Bang, the Universe would never truly be empty. Here’s the science of why.
No matter how clearly in your mind you’re capable of envisioning an empty Universe with nothing in it, that picture simply does not conform to reality. Insisting that the laws of physics remain valid is enough to do away with the idea of a truly empty Universe. So long as energy exists within it — even the zero-point energy of the quantum vacuum is sufficient — there will always be some form of radiation that can never be removed. The Universe has never been completely empty, and so long as dark energy doesn’t decay entirely away, it never will be, either.
Ethan Siegel, “The Universe Has Never Truly Been Empty” at Medium
But wait. If it was truly empty, it would not exist, right? What we mean by the “universe” is everything that exists. So, if it’s “empty,” nothing exists.
Of course, it could always exist as an abstract idea but then it must be the abstract idea of a Being in another dimension.
Or are we missing something?
In 2019, Ethan Siegel also wrote about nothingness, explaining “how we can “get a universe from nothing.” That must have been a different nothing.
See also: Must We Understand “Nothing” To Understand Physics?
If there had ever been truly nothing, there would still be nothing, even if it’s something we cannot imagine. Conversely, since there is something, there must always have been something, even if it wasn’t the Universe in which we find ourselves.
Yeah god, and you might as well say god if you believe in laws that constantly exist out side of matter that shape the universe
Furthermore everything he mentions above is by no means provable and purely hypothetical
They been pushing that perspective of perpetual existence for a longer time now. Cyclic universes to m theory and nothing pivotal has come from it
Why does anyone still listen to Siegel?
Siegel, much like Hawkings did, uses circular reasoning, which is no reasoning at all.
Siegal claims, basically, instead of God, that zero point energy has always existed.
Small problem for Seigal and other atheistic Materialists, no one can seem to detect this zero point energy, virtual particles and/or this ‘quantum foam’, that Siegal believes must have always existed.
People who believe in virtual particles usually point to the Casimir Effect as supposedly definitive proof for virtual particles (and/or zero point energy, and/or quantum foam).
Yet, the Casimir Effect is not definitive proof for virtual particles and/or quantum foam. Far from it.
As the following article states, ““Casimir effects can be formulated and Casimir forces can be computed without reference to zero-point energies.,,, In fact, the description in terms of van der Waals forces is the only correct description from the fundamental microscopic perspective,[20][21] while other descriptions of Casimir force are merely effective macroscopic descriptions.”
Seigal, and other atheistic materialists, simply have ZERO empirical evidence for ‘quantum foam’. In fact there is much evidence that argues agains its existence.
So once again, we see that the supposed scientific evidence that Atheists depend on to support their worldview simply does not exist anywhere save for in their unrestrained imaginations.
wishful thinking by those wishing to rationalize their denial of the designed and created actuality.
even the Dark Matter (and Dark Energy) are mythical fudge factors that are required to live in their cozy deep-time dependent, confirmation bias reinforced, box, to opt. out of facing the one reality.
reference Pearlman YeC.
Seversky,
Do you believe in causality? Science is based entirely on causality. Without causality, we could know nothing. So, what was the cause of the Something you’re referring to?
I ask this because your “Something” sounds like it’s eternal, all powerful (everything in the universe came from it) and causeless . . . sorta like God, right?
-Q
Now, if we just wait long enough for the above post . . . letters will appear spontaneously in the something of “post space” and evolve into a universe of brilliantly crafted information.
Right? 😉
-Q
Seems like we’ll need to wait millions of years for any reply.
-Q