11Prompt - Universe

Did the universe originate from nothing?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 19 Dec 2024 15:23:26 +0000

In 2010, scientist Lawrence M. Krauss wrote an article1 in the Wall Street Journal in which he argued that since the total amount of energy in our current universe is zero, it follows that the universe originated from nothing. The gist of his argument was this: Let us assume that the universe actually arose from nothing. (Here it is the so-called nothing of scientists, not the nothing of philosophers.) Then the total energy of the universe must be zero, because everything here started from nothing. Amazingly, scientists have also found that the total energy in the present universe is zero. So it is natural to say that the universe actually originated from nothing, because only then would its total energy be expected to be zero.

But by applying the same argument that Krauss uses for showing that the universe originated from nothing, it can be shown that the universe could not have originated from nothing. His argument was this: If the universe had originated from nothing, then the total energy of the universe would be zero. And the total energy of the universe is also zero. But if the total energy of the universe is zero because of the fact that the universe had originated from nothing, then the total amount of space-time of the universe will also be zero because of the same fact that the universe had originated from nothing, But have scientists been able to show that the total amount of space-time in the universe is zero? If they can't show it, then they can't claim that the universe had originated from nothing.

Reference:
1. http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703946504575469653720549936

All We Need to Know about Quantum Entanglement

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 09 Mar 2024 13:36:10 +0000

Almost all physicists who work on quantum gravity state that space-time is emergent, not fundamental. If space-time is emergent, what does it mean? Since space-time could not exist before the emergence of space-time, the emergence of space-time means that there is another layer in the universe below the layer of space-time where there is no space-time, and from which layer space-time has emerged. If two points are in the layer of the universe where space-time is real, there will be some distance between those two points. That distance can be one light-year, that distance can be 1 billion light-years, and again be 93 billion light-years if the two points are at the two ends of the universe. But in the layer of the universe where there is no space-time, the distance between those two points will be zero in all three cases because there is no space-time at that layer. When two quantum particles are entangled, if their position after entanglement is in a layer of the universe where there is no space-time, no matter how far the two particles are from each other, the distance between them will always be zero. In this situation, why should we be surprised if an observation made on one entangled particle will affect the other particle instantaneously?

However, we can draw two conclusions from the claim that space-time is emergent. I have drawn one so far, but not the other one. The conclusion is that if space-time is emergent, then space-time was also emergent at the time of the beginning/birth of the universe. Scientists cannot say that space-time was fundamental at that time and that space-time has somehow become emergent at some point later. If scientists admit that space-time was emergent at the beginning/birth of the universe, they must say that the layer from which space-time emerged was also present before the beginning/birth of the universe. Otherwise, where did space and time come from when the universe was born? And if scientists can't admit that, then let them stop saying that space-time is emergent; they should say that space-time is fundamental.

Now, we can come to what Einstein stated about his theory of general relativity: If we solve the equations of GR without energy and matter, then flat space-time would obtain, and special relativity would govern that flat space-time. So, according to him, this world was eternal, but there was a time when there was no energy and matter, and then the world was flat. I have used the word world here but not the word universe. However, Einstein forgot to mention one thing here. His GR had shown that space-time could not exist without matter. That is, what Einstein said about his theory of general relativity can be expressed as follows: before the appearance of energy and matter, that is, before the beginning/birth of the universe, there was always a world, that world was flat, and in that flat world there was no space, no time, no energy, and no matter. I would request the readers to consider whether they can find any similarity between the conclusion drawn from what Einstein said about GR and the one drawn from the statement that space-time is emergent.

Now, we can talk about quantum entanglement. The picture that emerges from all the experiments on quantum entanglement is this: there is no such thing as space-time in one layer of the universe. As long as two quantum particles remain entangled, no matter how distant they are from each other, the distance between them will still be zero. That is because an observation made on one particle will immediately affect the other.

Now, if we put these three together and come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as space-time in one layer of the universe and that this layer where there is no space-time was present before the beginning/birth of the universe, is still present, and will be present in the future as well, then will it be very absurd? And if there is such a layer in the universe where distance and time have no meaning at all, then it is natural that phenomena like quantum entanglement should be a common occurrence there. So, there is no reason for us to be surprised by the phenomenon of quantum entanglement, and there is no reason for scientists to worry about being unable to explain that phenomenon. So, what is the use of all those sayings that there is spooky action at a distance, or that quantum entanglement violates special relativity, or that the wave function exists in reality when we can provide a simple explanation of it based merely on the fact that space-time is emergent?

All we need now is a scientist who, with great courage and despite all the cynicism of all the scientists on earth, can forcefully demand that we should draw the conclusion that emergent space-time is forcing us to and admit that a non-spatiotemporal layer predates the beginning/birth of the universe from which space-time emerged at the time of the beginning/birth of the universe, and which layer still exists, as evidenced by all the experiments on quantum entanglement.

Why Nature is red in Tooth and Claw

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Fri, 23 Jul 2021 16:10:11 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread, a person wrote the following:

He had watched a documentary on animals and sea life. He was watching how vicious nature could be. Sharks were killing seals, and alligators were killing zebras that crossed the river, lions were killing their prey, and on and on. After seeing all these, he started thinking about whether God was also like this. If we look at nature, we will see things appear calm on the one hand, and on another, things look so chaotic. Was it that God also meant for everything to be as it was? People will be killing other people, and then there will be all the crime, sickness, poverty, starvation, suffering, etc.? If one thinks about it, it all happens in nature, and we humans are all part of nature. So, if this is God's nature as well, then we are all doomed!

The following was my reply to him:

There is an easy explanation for that. It was God’s method of family planning and birth control.

Think of a situation when there were only herbivores on this planet and no carnivores to keep their numbers in check and balance. What would have happened after millions and millions of years? All these herbivores would have gone extinct due to an extreme food shortage; the earth would also have turned into a desert. In that situation, no new species could appear on earth.

But God created this universe to bring someone in it with whom he would be able to communicate. So, to preserve the greens on earth, God had to adopt this cruel method. That is because man had not yet appeared on the scene at that period that could use their intelligence to invent an effective means of birth control for these herbivorous animals.

Once man has appeared on earth, now all these carnivorous animals can go extinct. There is no need for any wildlife conservation for these carnivores.

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 15 Jul 2021 15:12:26 +0000

1) Physicists have shown that the total energy of the universe is zero.
2) SR has shown that mass and energy are equivalent.
3) Again GR has shown that space, time, and matter are so interlinked that there cannot be any spacetime without matter; similarly, there cannot be any matter without spacetime. There is a saying of Einstein on this: "When forced to summarize the general theory of relativity in one sentence: Time and space and gravitation have no separate existence from matter." (Source: Google search)

Based on the three above, it can be shown that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

The total energy of the universe being zero, it can be shown that its total matter is also zero.

The famous equation of Einstein from SR shows that E is equal to m multiplied by c squared. If E is zero now, then m will be equal to zero divided by c squared, which will also be zero. So, the total energy of the universe being zero, Einstein's famous equation shows that in that case, the total mass of the universe will also be zero.

Now, the below portion is from Google search:
//What is mass in Physics with example? Mass can be best understood as the amount of matter present in any object or body. For example, a table, a chair, your bed, a football, a glass, and even air has mass. ... That being said, all objects are light or heavy because of their mass.//

As the total mass of the universe is zero, so the total amount of matter present in the universe will also be zero.

As the total matte of the universe is zero, so we can say that the universe as a whole is immaterial.

If the total matter of the universe is zero, its total spacetime will also be zero because as per GR, there cannot be any spacetime without matter.

What does it mean that the total spacetime of the universe is zero? It means that the universe as a whole is spaceless and timeless, or non-spatiotemporal, if we use the new scientific term that has replaced the old one spaceless and timeless.

We have already seen that the universe as a whole is immaterial. Now we have seen that it is also spaceless and timeless. So, we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

Again, the total energy of the universe always remains zero. Therefore, the universe as a whole will always remain spaceless, timeless, and immaterial.

That means the universe as a whole does not change at all.

As the universe as a whole does not change at all, so we can say that the universe as a whole is spaceless, timeless, changeless, and immaterial.

That nicely explains why the wave function of the universe does not contain any time variable.

However, the above conclusion will be falsified if anybody in the near or distant future can show that the total energy of the universe has a non-zero value.

One-particle universe

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 15 May 2021 13:01:36 +0000

If it were possible for a human being to be simultaneously present in New York and London, then the distance between these two cities would be zero for that human being. But, for all the other human beings, this distance would remain the same as before.

If it were possible for someone to be simultaneously present at every point of the universe, then the distance from one end of the universe to its other end would be zero for that being because this being would be simultaneously present at both ends. Similarly, the time taken to travel from one end of the universe to its other end would also be zero for that being.

Here, we can say that the properties of the light show as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. That requires some detailed explanation.

For the light itself, this universe is zero millimeters long. Both the travel time and the travel distance become zero for light. If we suppose that someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe, then the universe will also be zero millimeters long for it. That is because it will be simultaneously present at both ends of the universe. Both the travel time and the travel distance will also become zero for it. That is because it will be simultaneously present at every point of the universe. That is the reason why it can be said that the properties of the light show as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe.

Experiments on quantum entanglement also show the same thing. If we arbitrarily choose any two points from the vast space of the universe, then the experiments on quantum entanglement will always show that the distance between these two points is zero. That is because an observation made on anyone entangled particle will also affect the other particle instantaneously. Here also, we can use the same analogy. If someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe, the distance between any two points arbitrarily chosen will be zero for that being. Both the properties of light and the experimental results of entanglement show the same thing as if someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. Here we will be getting the same properties as those that we will be getting in the first case of light and entangled particles.

However, physicists may not accept our suggestion that someone is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. So, here is one more.

The universe consists of only one particle (P), and this P is simultaneously present at every point of the universe. From this, we can now extract all those properties of light and the properties of the entangled particles. And we will find that this description of the universe makes quite a good sense.

The Ultimate Justification for a Creator

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Mon, 01 Mar 2021 14:50:52 +0000

Part I

Two reasons can be given as to why an entity may be spaceless and timeless:

1) Reason A: If the entity is not within any space and time, then it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. We can also say that it will be spaceless and timeless by default;

2) Reason B: If the entity is placed within some space and time, and if it is forcefully deprived of space and time, then also it will become spaceless and timeless.

For 1), we can give the example of the entity from which our known spacetime has emerged. In this 21st century, physicists are no more saying that spacetime is fundamental; rather, they are saying it is emergent. Spacetime is emergent means the source from which spacetime has emerged cannot be within any spacetime, for the simple reason that there cannot be any spacetime prior to its emergence. So, not being within any spacetime, it will naturally be spaceless and timeless. However, physicists are describing it not as spaceless and timeless, but as non-spatiotemporal. Whatever may be the nomenclature, the concept remains the same in both cases; the source from which spacetime has emerged is not within any spacetime and so, it is naturally non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless.

For 2), we can give the example of black hole singularities. Earlier, it was known to us that black hole singularities were point-like. Now it has been known that they are not point-like but rather one dimensional ring-like. In case of black hole singularities, whether they are point-like or ring-like, space and time almost contract to zero due to a tremendous gravitational force.

Now suppose there is one more entity within the universe that is also spaceless and timeless, but for which neither Reason A nor Reason B can be thought of as its cause. Here I am speaking about light. Light is within the universe, but as per SR both the travel distance and the travel time become zero for light. So, within the space and time of the universe, light occupies zero space for zero time, which is tantamount to saying that light is spaceless and timeless.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason A? No, we cannot say so, because we know very well that light is within the space and time of the universe.

Can we say that light is spaceless and timeless due to Reason B? No, we cannot say so, because we are not aware of any force that is active in case of light causing space and time contract to zero for light.

If light is spaceless and timeless neither due to Reason A, nor due to Reason B, then what is the reason due to which it is so?

Moreover, no black hole is as big as the universe. So, the length that is almost contracted to zero in case of black hole singularities is nothing compared to the entire width of the universe. But for light, the entire width of the universe is contracted to zero. If a tremendous gravitational force is responsible for the contraction of a black hole’s size of length almost to zero, then which force is responsible for the contraction of the entire width of the universe to zero, in case of light?

Does anyone have a clue about it? Can anybody say what the cause is due to which light is spaceless and timeless?

Part II

I have already stated that we do not know the reason due to which light is spaceless and timeless. But, whatever may be the reason of this, it can be shown that this reason cannot lie within the space and time of the universe.

Let us suppose that X is that reason and that X is within the universe. If X is not spaceless and timeless itself, then it is not possible for it to make another entity spaceless and timeless. So, X must have to be spaceless and timeless first, and then only it can make another entity spaceless and timeless. But, if X is also spaceless and timeless, then we will have to ask the same question about X that we were earlier asking about light: Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, how has it become spaceless and timeless? So, now we will have to search for the cause due to which X has become spaceless and timeless. Therefore, from this we can conclude that the cause due to which light is spaceless and timeless cannot lie within the space and time of the universe. It must lie outside any space and time.

The only entity that we know of that lies outside any space and time is the source from which our known spacetime has emerged. The existence of this entity in nature has already been confirmed once physicists have declared that spacetime is emergent. So, here is one entity that is spaceless and timeless by default, and for which we need not have to seek any further cause due to which it has become spaceless and timeless, because we already know that it is not within any space and time.

Now, if scientists can somehow show that this lifeless, mindless, and unconscious entity but that happens to be spaceless and timeless simply by default, can NATURALLY make another entity (aka light) spaceless and timeless, then this universe WILL NEVER NEED ANY GOD.

However, if they fail to do so, then only we will be compelled to posit some sort of consciousness here, because it is possible for a conscious being only to know how it is spaceless and timeless.

Science is the ultimate arbiter of truth and so, let science show that there is a natural explanation here.

We will be waiting for that explanation.

So easy, yet so difficult

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:37:39 +0000

Here is a game. If anyone in this world can play this game successfully, then she will be able to prove the existence of God with the help of science.

Let us suppose that this universe has a creator. If this creator is to keep proof of his existence in the created world in such a way that it can be easily recognized as proof of a creator, then which proof will he keep?

Anybody can play this game, theists and atheists alike, because it starts with a supposition only.

Here is a hint for those who will take part in this game: A creator as a creator may have some particular properties which no one else, nothing else created by him may have, simply because they have been created and because they are not the creator. If we now find these particular properties of a creator in someone or something created, then we will immediately understand that these are from the creator only because no created being or thing can naturally have those properties.

Here is one more hint: When we say about something that it is spaceless and timeless, what we mean to say about it is that it is not within any space and time. But, whatever is there in the universe, is within the space and time of the universe. Being already placed within the space and time of the universe, can anything naturally be spaceless and timeless, that is, not within any space and time?

Here is one more: If there is indeed a creator of this universe, then it can be said that this creator has brought everyone and everything within the universe into existence. Whatever has been brought into existence by the creator has been given certain lifetime. Many stars in the sky have a lifetime of several billion years; we human beings have a lifetime of a few decades; some insects have a lifetime of a single day only. Can we think of anything that has also been brought into existence by the creator, but that has been given no lifetime?

When anybody playing this game will be able to correctly pinpoint those particular properties that only a creator is privileged to have, this game will be over.

Proving the existence of God is so easy, yet so difficult.

Was emergent spacetime fundamental at the beginning of the universe?

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Thu, 28 Nov 2019 07:14:16 +0000

In one YouTube comment thread one atheist has remarked that it is really infuriating that all the apologist arguments that he has seen presented so far have ultimately failed to provide any proof for the existence of god. All their arguments are nothing but playing around with definitions of words and literally just throwing an explanation into the gaps of our knowledge, thus showing that every single god argument is essentially a god of the gaps argument, or that they feel good or special by being able to give that argument. Although it is not the case that he does not want there to be a god, yet he hopes that this god will not be the genocidal maniac presented in the Bible.

I replied to him in the following manner:

‘If there is a God at all, then that God is not the God of this earth only, that God is the God of the entire universe. On this earth, many myths have been created around this God, but these myths cannot have any meaning and significance to the other civilizations, if there are any in the outer space, as the myths if created by the other civilizations in the outer space will not have any meaning and significance to us. So God should not at all be judged by any myths created by any religion on earth. This point should always be remembered.

‘Regarding the question as to whether there is any evidence for the existence of God, you can read my article ‘God, the full and final version’ here:

https://www.11prompt.com/?q=node/577

‘However, one cautionary remark here. Please do not try to misinterpret me, either willingly or unwillingly, because atheists are very much prone to do that. In the above article, I have shown as to why a creator of the universe will always be spaceless and timeless. Then I have also shown that scientists in the 21st century have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental at all and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal/spaceless and timeless in nature.

‘So, this much is confirmed by science up till now that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature and I have also shown that God will always be spaceless and timeless.

‘Nothing further has been claimed or asserted by me that this shows there is a God. Rather, I have written that in order to come to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing has got consciousness, we will have to wait for the delivery of the requisite goods from the scientists.’

After getting my reply, this atheist becomes silent. But it is not so easy to silence all the atheists at the same time and so there immediately appears another atheist in the scene and states that my understanding of present-day cosmology is biased and outdated. This is because there are at least two cosmological models that do not require a first cause. These are: 1) Hawking’s no boundary proposal and 2) Penrose’s conformal cyclic cosmology. Both of these models are mathematically coherent and the Penrose model may even have some physical evidence.

My reply to this atheist was a bit lengthy, but he also became silent after getting the reply. Below it is:

‘Your comment shows that perhaps you have not yet fully understood what it means that spacetime is emergent. An entity is emergent means it cannot emerge from just anything or nothing; it can emerge from some pre-existing entity or entities only. In the case of spacetime, this pre-existing entity is something non-spatiotemporal. In brief, we can call it NSE (non-spatiotemporal entity).

‘This NSE must be pre-existent in each and every cosmological model of the universe in which it is an accepted fact that the universe is expanding from an initial zero size and that it is not static. In some of the models, the expansion of the universe will stop after some time and then it will begin to contract and eventually it will come to a zero size. From there another phase of the universe will begin. In some other models, this expansion does not stop and nobody knows for how long the universe will go on expanding. But in every cosmological model that has been presented to us so far, this expansion of the universe from an initial zero size is there. That means in each and every cosmological model presented to us, spacetime has a beginning. Spacetime being emergent cannot begin/emerge from anything else other than NSE. Here there will be no beginning of spacetime, rather the emergence of spacetime from some pre-existing entity.

‘Here it might be objected: why can it not be the case that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe and that it became emergent later on only? Here our question will be: Not from any theory, but from the external world, can scientists give any concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe?

‘Here I will give you one example for making my point clear. In the special theory of relativity, there are two equations that show that at the speed of light time totally stops and that even an infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness. So, it can be said that SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. It can also be shown by some simple logic that a timeless entity is also a deathless entity. So, we can now say SR has shown how it is possible to be spaceless, timeless and immortal. Based on this, can we jump to the conclusion that there is a spaceless, timeless and immortal being, aka God? Will anybody allow us? Will you allow us?

‘Here you will say: “We want some concrete evidence that there is a God. Only theory or maths will not do.”

‘We are saying the same thing here also: “We want some concrete evidence that spacetime was fundamental at the beginning of the expansion of the universe. Only theory or maths will not do.”’

My remark: There is a difference between science and religion. In religion, everything is accepted by faith alone, no evidence being required for any claim made. But in science, this is not so, because in science we do not accept anything by faith; we require some evidence for every claim made by the scientists. So, if scientists now claim that spacetime was fundamental when the universe began to expand, then they must provide some suitable evidence in support of their contention that it was fundamental at that time.

God-question being existential, can be answered by science only

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Sat, 14 Sep 2019 12:56:25 +0000

If there is a God at all, then any evidence for the existence of that God must come from science only because the language of science is the only language that will be the same everywhere in the universe.

If there is a God, then that God will not be the God of a small tribe on this earth; neither will he be the God of this earth only. Rather, he will be the God of the entire universe. The current estimate is that there are about two trillions of galaxies in the observable part of our universe. If we now suppose that there is at least one planet in each galaxy on which human or human-like creatures have appeared, then there are at least two trillion human or human-like civilizations in the observable part of the universe. So, if God is to keep any evidence of his existence in the universe, then he will have to keep it in a language that will be equally understood by all these two trillion civilizations. And that language can only be the language of science.

That is the reason as to why any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only.

There is one more reason as to why this evidence must come from science only, the reason being that the God-question is essentially an existential question, the question being whether there is any God at all. As this is an existential question, so this cannot be settled by logic alone. By logic alone we cannot decide that there is a God; or, by logic alone we cannot decide that there is no God. In both the cases, we need some evidence and this evidence can come from science only.

That is the reason as to why all the traditional arguments for the existence of God that were known to man for more than two thousand years, have so far failed to convince the non-believers that there is a justified reason to believe in the existence of God, because all these traditional arguments have tried to settle an essentially existential question by means of logic alone which they cannot do.

I have already stated that any evidence for the existence of God must come from science only. So, without much advancement in science, it was not possible to get any such evidence from there. Only when science has made some progress, then only we begin to get such shreds of evidence from science.

1) God is mostly described by the theists as spaceless and timeless. In the first decade of the 20th century, two equations in SR have shown how it is possible to be spaceless and timeless. At the speed of light, time totally stops and even infinite distance becomes zero for light. The first one is the scientific explanation for timelessness and the second one is the same for spacelessness.

2) Then in the 21st century, scientists have come to the conclusion that spacetime is not fundamental and that it has emerged from something non-spatiotemporal in nature. It has already been explained earlier that 'non-spatiotemporal' is the new scientific term for the old term 'spaceless and timeless'. That means scientists are now saying that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature from which spacetime has emerged.

3) Here it should be remembered that modern science began from the time of Copernicus (1473-1543). Several centuries have passed after that and in the 21st century only scientists have come to the conclusion that there is something spaceless and timeless in nature. So, it is quite logical to expect that they might require some more centuries for coming to the conclusion that this spaceless and timeless thing is actually a conscious being.

Our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer

Himangsu Sekhar Pal — Tue, 03 Sep 2019 13:01:40 +0000

As theists frequently claim about God that he is outside space and time, so some atheists have mistakenly thought that this means God is outside the universe. As there is nothing outside the universe, so God does not exist.

But this is not true. Repeated observations of the phenomenon of quantum entanglement have compelled the scientists to come to the conclusion that at some deeper layer in the universe there is no space and time. That is why the connection between two entangled particles is established instantaneously, defying all the space-time separation between the two.

This shows that our universe is multi-layered. At its uppermost layer, there is spacetime; but at some deeper layer, there is no spacetime. The universe is spaceless and timeless at that layer.

So, if this spaceless and timeless God is to be there at all, then he need not have to be outside the universe. He can very easily accommodate himself within some deeper layer of this universe. That is why God is also called all-pervading.

So, our conclusion is this: our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer.

11Prompt - Universe

Did the universe originate from nothing?

Tags:

All We Need to Know about Quantum Entanglement

Tags:

Why Nature is red in Tooth and Claw

Tags:

Spaceless, Timeless, and Immaterial

Tags:

One-particle universe

Tags:

The Ultimate Justification for a Creator

Tags:

So easy, yet so difficult

Tags:

Was emergent spacetime fundamental at the beginning of the universe?

Tags:

God-question being existential, can be answered by science only

Tags:

Our universe is multi-layered and God can reside in it at some deeper layer

Tags: