Did the Universe came from Nothing?

Did the Universe came from Nothing?

Where is God's Hand in the Universe Creation...:)

For as long as there was people and before people for as long as there was Dinosaurs..:) , there were people exploiting people by claiming to speak God's Word.

This is an interesting debate about Religion:
Does God Exist? (Frank Turek vs Christopher Hitchens)

It is interesting but it pains me that Christopher Hitchens doesn't have my simple explanation to rebut the question about Everything from Nothing.

The question about Morality coming from molecules.  There is no reason to consider that morality (compassion, family ties, sense of mortality etc) doesn't have a biological (chemical) basis.   Elephants, dogs, etc show compassion, love or emotional attachment, self-sacrifice etc

Those characteristics can be naturally selected since they relate to societal (group) life.  Groups are stronger than lonely individuals.  I have no doubt that a large fraction of being Good and being Evil (psychopath) is biological.  So I think that Hitchens could have a clearer position against Turek argument that Morality is Divine.   If Divine means qualities that are naturally better selectable, then Morality is Divine in the same way as Gravitation/Electromagnetism is Divine.

It is just an Antropic Label...  Natural selection will not select a bunch of selfish psychopaths facing the Glacial Age (for instance) or facing competition for food and being food in a Primordial Forest. Natural selection will favor collaborative, loving people instead, so Natural Selection supports Morality.

The only salient point of Turek's position is if there is an interventionist God.  All the other arguments are trivially rebuttable. He didn't try to prove that.

That said, the discussion is pleasant to listen to  and I highly recommend it.

Cheers,

MP

Do we live in a 3D Hypersurface...:)

Do we live in a  3D Hypersurface?

How would we know about it?  We can see the three dimensions.  The surface aspect would come into play if those three dimensions were embedded into some extra dimension.

If there was something outside that Hypersurface, we would see it in the same way, a Soccer ball left under the hot Sun, would feel its heat.

That heat would be diffuse and since no direction within a 3D spatial manifold could be used to point to the actual source.

Luckily, we don't see that happening, which means we are not in a collision path onto another part of this Universe (4D spatial manifold).

So, it would seem that a fourth dimension would be unknowable..:) Einstein proposed that time is relative (time flow).  That sound like a great sound bite...:) and clearly incorrect since we all describe the beginning of times to be around some 14 Billion years ago.  So there is something timing the Universe expansion and that somehow always flow in the same way no matter where you are in the Universe.

The timing of the Universe expansion is mapped into the Cosmological Time in my theory.  The fourth dimensional radius of the Universe is related to it by the observed speed of light.  The fourth dimensional radius of the Universe is C (observed speed of light) times Omega (Cosmological Time).

In my theory, the actual speed of light is SQRT(2) C...:) since in my theory our reference frame is a lightspeed traveling reference framework.

Other Hypergeometrical Universes
In my theory, numbers and Number Theory plays a strong role, albeit accidental.  I am not a Numerologist..;) Primes felt on my lap when I started my assignment of Hyperons.

Primes also appears in my reference to a Number Universe where the volume of each Number is always a product of vectors along Prime directions.  This view of a Number Universe has a reflection on the Hypergeometrical Universe Cosmogenesis.

Remember that the Cosmogenesis started in Zero Dimensional Fluctuations (0 = 1-1= 2-2=7-7 etc).
Fluctuations of Zero Dimensions could be followed by One Dimension Fluctuation through a Dimensional Transition.

The next step is Two-Dimension embedded into 3D, Three-Dimension into 4D...

Remember that the Origin of the Universe is the decay of the Fundamental Fluctuation into a myriad of small fluctuations. Enthropy creates the barrier to the recombination into Oblivion.  The question is how entropy barrier depends upon dimensionality.  I am not going to dwell on that issue right now, but entropy increases with dimensionality (higher number of possible states), thus it is necessary a minimum level of Dimensionality Migration to create a long lasting Universe.

At this point we can define an Anthropic.  Our 3D Hypersurface (lightspeed expanding due to the partial recombination of the initial fluctuation) would certainly fit the mold.

The next great question is if Primes controls the dimensionality of Universes... :)  I would be my house (I live in an apartment..:).

It is an appealing concept. I will make it MP Conjecture..such that my name is attach to it..:)
Under those conditions the total dimensional of spacetime would be 7. Our Hypergeometrical Universe is 5D (4 spatial dimensions and one Time dimension to time it).

Under those conditions, the lightspeed expanding Hypersurface would be 5D, embedded into a extra spatial dimension, plus a Time to time the whole thing...:)

The other question can our 5D Universe explosion be part of a 7D Universe explosion.  I cannot see how, so due to the frailty of my mind have to consider that this Universe is all alone until its death.
The Cosmos will end, eventually and the Dimensional transition into a Zero Dimensional Space will happen...and everything will start over again.

It is a boring Universe but it is Ours...All Ours..:)  Don't miss the opportunity to explore it...  Great Place to Visit...:)

Cheers,

MP

Unnecessarily Constrained

Unnecessarily Constrained..:)

Little by little this theory is gaining some track.  It is a humble, simple theory of everything..:)

Humble because it could had been created by a High-Schooler.  Simple because it is really simple. It was developed using two dimensional cross-sections..:) One cannot simplify the Universe more than that... :)  It is doesn't even require three-dimensional modeling..:)....mostly

It has strong points...mainly with respect to its conceptual framework.  Even the fact that it was created using such a simplified framework brings up extremely deep questions.  What seems to be a weakness is actually a tremendous strength.

For instance, in my theory, the dilaton field (which carries the only means of action-at-distance within the theory) decreases with the number of de Broglie cycles  along a two-dimensional cross-section of a five dimensional spacetime manifold.

How can any theory based on this model be correct?  Any previous theory always used the underlying hypothesis (not normally in an explicit form) that whatever is carrying action-at-distance effect, is spreading out on a expanding surface (expanding at the speed of light).  That is a good idea, if one has a lot of photons, gravitinos, or whatever you are thinking to be the carrier of your force, that is, on average, the carrier of the action is distributed on a surface... but that doesn't mean that the basis of the theory should make use of this hypothesis.  It conflict head-on with Relativity.
If you have a single photon being emitted, its absorption by a molecule, detector etc, in a location in the Universe collapses the wavefunction at infinite speed..:) - creating a real problem with Relativity.

It turned out that this is one of the important questions that only a very good Quantum Mechanics student would ask...:)

This simple example showcases hidden cracks on how we model interaction and hints that the normal modeling of energy distributed throughout sphero-radians or tridimensional or higher-order dimensional area is not a good idea.  I developed a theory that works both with a single photon or dilaton or many...:) and reproduces the results we already have for a large number of photons without conceptual sacrifices.

There are other constraints that our Science have but doesn't know they are artificial.

As I mentioned in the post The Image in the Mirror when I explained how time passes by..:)

Using the basic equation (Unification Equation) describing the displacement (x) traveled at each de Broglie stepwise expansion of the Universe, we showed that that displacement gets smaller and smaller as matter reaches closer and closer to the speed of light (45 degrees trajectory).  This means that time passes by at the same speed.  The effect of interaction gets smaller and smaller (as if the effective time were to slow down). In my theory, the effect of speed is not slowing down time, but it is implicit on the way matter (dilators) interact (through dilaton waves and the Quantum Lagrangian Principle).  Just as a reminder, The Quantum Lagrangian Principle is the simple notion that any dilator moves such as always to be in phase with the local dilaton field.

This means that those considerations of infinite energy to make something travel at the speed of light might be unwarranted.  If the acceleration is due to self-acceleration (propulsion traveling together with the rocket), then as velocity increases, the chemical, nuclear reactions taking place on the propulsion system would slow down and be actually less energetic...less effective in producing further acceleration.  That wouldn't be the case under different conditions..:)

On the other hand, one should think along the lines of Voltage, Resistance and Current.  Lets say that Resistance is equal to Inertial Mass.  Voltage is equal to Force and Current is Velocity.

One can envision resonance conditions where the resistance goes to zero, as in a LC circuit.  That would be equivalent as minimizing the inertia of matter.  Remember, velocity in my theory corresponds to a deformation of the local metric (Strain). Force corresponds to Stress.  Space is flexible so there is a frequency of resonance..:) One just has to handle space at that frequency to accelerate matter...:)  Simple problem if you understand my theory..:)

Another unnecessary constraints we impose ourselves is the concept that losses are inherent in the acceleration of charged particles.  That is the reason why we created such horrendously big particle accelerators.  If you eliminate radiation losses, you could have the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) inside a briefcase..:) or a laptop...:)  My theory sheds light on how to do that.  Please feel free to ask questions.

Cheers,

MP