OK
Riddle me this, Batman. How does a universe spontaneously appear from nothing...
Well, let's look at this in a different way:
For physicists to assert that the universe arises out of nothing actually means that it is erupting from what was there prior; "nothing" represents (in one scenario) our inability to describe it, or, we are aware of - or "nothing" we can explain. It could also be said that "nothing" represents the something that is no longer present in our universe - essentially - "nothing" from 'IT' remains. It may seem like semantics, but that is what "nothing" describes in this context. So, in that light, we could say that - because there were no "fundamental building blocks" for a universe's creation available, the eruption of a universe in that spot violates our perception, therefore it spontaneously appears from nothing.
What you aren't getting from that discussion is that there is actually "something" there and that "it" comes in a pair of [mainstream] theoretical possibilities. a) Vacuum energy - dark energy/matter - Higg's Field In other words: some form of 'unseen energy' field that spontaneously converts itself into matter and energy in our space time/worldsheet. b) Higher dimensional membrane collision/intersection. This is a tricky one, and the one that taxes my theoretical skills at their limit. I try to devote 50% of my cognitive thought to this theory and I find myself slipping into long bouts of disassociation when I'm there due to its radical abstractness. I know better physicists (younger ones too) that have literally LOST THEIR MIND and have switched to mathematics instead of physics in the process.
"Option a" is what most of us refer to as the "Einstein Effect". We do that in order to acknowledge that Al was the originator of the idea that something always exists, even in empty space, and that this "something" is what is pushing the expansion of the universe. He originally proffered the idea, by way of a new addition to General Relativity (GR), and it was dubbed the Cosmological constant. Granted - he did it for his own reasons, but ultimately he was trying to explain how the universe could continue to exist. The constant was proven to be incorrect by Edwin Hubbell, but that's not really the point. Einstein's idea that *something* exists that keeps gravity from working its magic to its full extent, be it vacuum energy, field potential, Dark matter or Dark energy, or even the elusive Higg's mechanism, appears to be generally correct. The problem is, everything in this option is unproven and aside from casting a shadow - we have no evidence that it even makes sense. That's why "option b" arose.
The concept of "option b" is simple enough to explain, but the dynamics at play are so enormously complicated that one is really tasked with trying to write the recipe for building the entire universe out of ingredients that do not exist - but may. Part of the transformations that are required are used to determine how ingredients may arise from this process, and then how they would be 'ordered' on our dimensionally oriented worldsheet so that they manufactured all that is useful, while disallowing all that isn't; therefore unseen. What gets in our way is "Dark-stuff". We cannot/have not developed a means of explaining Dark Matter (DM) or Dark Energy (DE), and this is seen as a lynchpin since so much of the physics field assures us that it is there. It also takes us back to "option A" which is a problem in itself... Anyway, I agree that there is *something* driving expansion and ordering the movements of galaxies, but that doesn't mean it has to be DM or DE. But I admit to being a little biased against them. Even at the limits of my ability, DM & DE do not "naturally arise" from anything that we theorize, any of the math we follow or any of the models we manufacture. Those effects (expansion galactic sigma) do, however, arise naturally from other models, theories and math that do not incorporate mythical and magical items that we have not and cannot see. So, we wind up back where we began - trying to cook up a universe in a computer - a process begun by simply slamming two (or more) membranes together. Enter supergravity and string theory (ultimately M-Theory).
M-theory assumes that the whole process for our universe begins in a complete void called the bulk. In the bulk, there is nothing or, there is something - depending upon the theory. At the very most (we surmise) there would be fields that escape the brane and are worthless in the bulk (as it has a neutral effect on everything) but may have an effect in another (adjacent) brane. Obviously, the strong fields in our brane would be weakest in the bulk (they are 'used up here'), and the weakest ones here are the strongest ones on another brane. In that case, proximity plays no role and is referred to as the "Zero Net Sum Gain Theory". Having said that - proximity may play a role in another scenario, and that theory is encompassed by the "Proximity Gain Theory". It holds that the branes are like parallel plates separated by only the Casimir Effect (or something similar), and distance between the plates control the strength of interactions between them. Finally, we have "Field Weakening Theory". It theorizes that the branes are nothing at all like any of the other ideas and that they are multi-dimensional objects that mold and conform with one another. Their proximity causes expansion in our universe to shrink or grow and ultimately - expansion accelerates until the branes orient properly and SPLAT! They connect and a new eruption of "something" arises. In this scenario, neither brane ceases to exist, but the values are totally reordered and changes definitely occur. The affected portions of space are simply pinched off and begin to grow into a new universe as large as ours and we are hardly any the wiser of it.
What keeps the "math" correct is that our overall mass remains stable. This is also part of the quandary. Take a basketball for example: Blow it up to its regulation diameter and pressure - then weigh it. Now, increase its size by filling it with
"unobtainium" . If it’s now twice as large (volume), but its mass has remain constant; what has happened? Is it possible? No – it isn’t possible with the physics we have today. Energy was imparted into the ball, no matter what you put into the ball and therefore mass had to have risen… Unless… 1) There is an external force being applied to the universe (from another brane), or, 2) There is something out there that actually has a negative mass [effect] that would offset the amount of energy imparted exactly. Enter DM & DE again. Neither of them can exist in our universe according to our physics, so both will need new math and science to support them. This is a little reported fact about their properties, and one of the main reasons that neither arise naturally from our current theories and math. And still, there is no explanation for the energy being imparted that DM & DE are offsetting – unless DE
IS the energy. Any way, that’s what’s happening to the universe, it’s expanding although the overall mass is remaining constant.
Ultimately, the *something* that has resulted in "nothing" being predicted is really quite fascinating.
...unless by mind or pre-matter energy/force according to their theory? {snip}
I really cannot comment on that Buddy - there's not enough information to work with. I could just as easily say that the mythical magical being, The Pllsbury Dough Boy, has created something from where there was nothing. He gathered the materials and took that which was empty (a cookie sheet) and combined the necessary ingredients to ultimately fill that void. By gathering it all together and imparting his wisdom and power upon it, he was able to create small universes filled with nuts and chocolate and ultimately expand the universe; one waistline at a time. Because the recipe existed only in his mind, he "thought them into existence". I need more detail to separate Pillsbury from the "Father and Son" or the Gods in general, that you speak of. Wish I could be of more help.
