But it is a question of paramount importance, the moment you attribute a quality to nothing, more than a perfect vacuum, can it still be defined as nothing? how can a nothing condition with the potential to unleash the energy/mass/ spacetime of our universe have been nothing?
Michio Kaku: can universes form from "nothing" ?
how can a nothing condition with the potential to unleash the energy/mass/ spacetime of our universe have been nothing?
Who is to say that nothing ever existed in a total form? Nobody! We need first determine what/whether total absence of something or anything for that matter is even possible. In terms of what a modern human might be able to imagine with out a critical thinking who knows what we might come up with and the variable possiblities. I think that is why quantum mechanics is counter intuitive Ultimate Reality doesn't match up with perceived reality with the senses which can be mistaken for the ultimate.
I think we need to think of the law of conservation of energy too:
In physics, the law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system remains constant—it is said to be conserved over time. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed; rather, it transforms from one form to another. For instance, chemical energy can be converted to kinetic energy in the explosion of a stick of dynamite.
A consequence of the law of conservation of energy is that a perpetual motion machine of the first kind cannot exist. That is to say, no system without an external energy supply can deliver an unlimited amount of energy to its surroundings.
From my perspective for any of these pre-beginning theories to work, time has to be eternal, a fundamental given. now, you bringing in energy , would that mean energy is eternal too? an intriguing "yes" could come from the novel concept that the universe aquires more energy as it expands. We live not only in a perpetual motion machine a la Newton, but an accelerating system being fed energy from unlimited supply at the base or the void "outside?
Gravity at this stage is the negative energy and mass positive energy = 0
Pascual Jordan first suggested that since the positive energy of a star’s mass and the negative energy of its gravitational field together may have zero total energy, conservation of energy would not prevent a star being created by a quantum transition of the vacuum. George Gamow recounted putting this idea to Albert Einstein: “Einstein stopped in his tracks and, since we were crossing a street, several cars had to stop to avoid running us down”.
The zero-energy universe theory originated in 1973, when Edward Tryon proposed in the Nature journal that the universe emerged from a large-scale quantum fluctuation of vacuum energy, resulting in its positive mass-energy being exactly balanced by its negative gravitational potential energy.
A generic property of inflation is the balancing of the negative gravitational energy, within the inflating region, with the positive energy of the inflaton field to yield a post-inflationary universe with negligible or zero energy density. It is this balancing of the total universal energy budget that enables the open-ended growth possible with inflation; during inflation, energy flows from the gravitational field (or geometry) to the inflaton field—the total gravitational energy decreases (i.e. becomes more negative) and the total inflaton energy increases (becomes more positive). But the respective energy densities remain constant and opposite since the region is inflating. Consequently, inflation explains the otherwise curious cancellation of matter and gravitational energy on cosmological scales, which is consistent with astronomical observations.
Due to quantum uncertainty, energy fluctuations such as an electron and its anti-particle, a positron, can arise spontaneously out of vacuum space, but must disappear rapidly. The lower the energy of the bubble, the longer it can exist. A gravitational field has negative energy. Matter has positive energy. The two values cancel out provided the universe is completely flat. In that case, the universe has zero energy and can theoretically last forever.
The point where physics and philosophy are starting to collide again.
Useful article on problems with testing string theory: https://www.quantamagazine.org/20151216-physicists-and-philosophers-debate-the-boundaries-of-science/
BrokebackWT: and I thought that if took the cross-sum of the two entities on both side of an equation you had two, and not zero. and that gravity is caused by mass via the Higgs particle. That the energy in movement is balancing the effect of gravity of the mass. Like a see-saw, just because the two sides balance, does not mean they have zero weight. does not each form of energy still require effort or explanation for it's existence, ?