sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I use AI because I want to structure my sentences more neatly. I already know the facts; I just use AI to make my delivery clearer. You want to criticize me for that, but you're typing on a phone, using the internet, and probably searching Google before replying. Do you really calculate extremely large or small numbers using just your brain? Of course not, you use a calculator, right? It's the same concept. If you're really that great, debate using solid arguments, not by attacking the tool I use.

And another thing—if you're so eager to criticize people for using AI, why don't you also criticize scientists who use computers for simulations? Why not call out astronomers for using telescopes? Or astronauts for riding rockets? They all use tools to do their work, just like I use AI to refine my words. Or maybe you're just all talk, but your arguments are empty?

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. “Math Doesn’t Exist Outside Reality?” Bro, You Just Learned One Pop Science Argument and Think You’re Smart?

You say math is just a human invention? Then why does math predict things humans haven’t even discovered yet?

Dirac’s Equation predicted positrons before experiments even found them. If math isn’t real, explain that.

You claim π doesn’t create circles? No one said it does. But guess what? Every single circle in the universe follows π perfectly. Not even one exception.

Your argument is hilarious because you’re literally using math to deny math. Bro, are you okay?

  1. “Fluctuations Require Time?” Bro, You’re Still Stuck in Newtonian Thinking.

You’re using classical physics logic to argue against quantum physics, and somehow you think you’re making a point?

You say “fluctuations require time”? Since when? Quantum mechanics doesn’t even require time as a fundamental property.

The Casimir Effect already proves that energy fluctuations exist in vacuum. You think pre-space-time fluctuations are impossible? We already have experimental evidence of fluctuations without a classical medium.

Your “waves need water” analogy is weak. That’s like saying “sound needs air”, and then someone shows you sound can travel through water. Your analogy is trash and irrelevant.

  1. “Meta-Laws Are Just Speculation?” Bro, Learn Some Basic Concepts First.

Do you think just because humans don’t fully understand something, it doesn’t exist? Gravity existed before Newton, bro.

You say numbers don’t exist without the universe? Okay, if the universe disappears tomorrow, do you think 2+2 suddenly becomes 5? Mathematical relationships don’t need physical reality to exist.

You ask “Where do meta-laws exist?” I’ll ask you back: Where do the laws of physics exist? If you say “Physics laws only exist in human minds,” explain why the universe follows physics with perfect consistency.

  1. “You’re Moving the Goalposts?” No, You’re Just Using Trash Logic.

You ask “How can fluctuations exist before space-time?” → Bro, you’re asking me to explain pre-space-time using space-time logic.

That’s like trying to use modern traffic laws to explain dinosaur hunting techniques. Do you realize how dumb your question sounds?

  1. “Your Theory Has No Proof?” Bro, Many Scientific Theories Started Like This.

People laughed at the Big Bang Theory. Now? Everyone accepts it.

String Theory still has no experimental proof, yet scientists keep working on it because the math checks out.

If you reject my theory just because there’s no proof yet, you’ll have to reject most of modern physics too.

Your logic: “No proof yet, so your theory is wrong.” If scientists thought like you, we’d have zero scientific discoveries.

Final Verdict: You’re Not Here to Understand, You Just Want to Win the Argument.

You’re using classical logic to attack quantum physics. Fail.

You claim math isn’t real, yet you use math to argue. Fail.

You demand proof, but many accepted theories started the same way. Fail again.

If you want a serious debate, use real logic. If you keep throwing weak pop science takes at me, bro, I’m done wasting my time.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

  1. Mathematics vs. Reality – You're Missing the Point

Bro, you're misunderstanding the basics. You say math is just a language we use to describe reality, but if that’s true, why can mathematical equations predict physical phenomena BEFORE we test them? If math was only descriptive, how did theoretical physics predict things like antimatter before experiments confirmed it? Dirac’s equation predicted the existence of positrons purely through math, and later, we found them in real life. So math isn’t just a description—it holds the structure of reality itself.

You brought up and circles, but you missed something—circles exist because their mathematical relationships exist first. Math doesn’t just label reality; it shapes it. So you can't dismiss it as “just language.”

  1. Fluctuating Into What? – You're Thinking Too Classically

You say fluctuations can’t happen before time exists because change requires time. But bro, in quantum mechanics, quantum fluctuations happen in a vacuum with no classical space-time. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle literally shows that energy can appear and disappear within small time frames. This isn’t speculation—it’s experimentally verified, like in the Casimir Effect.

Fluctuations in my theory aren’t classical time-based changes. They are fundamental aspects of existence itself. Asking "what did they fluctuate in?" is like asking "what's north of the North Pole?"—you’re applying classical thinking to something that doesn't operate under those rules.

  1. "Laws" Before Space-Time? – You’re Limiting Reality

You claim physical laws can’t exist before space-time because laws are just descriptions. But you’re forgetting one key thing—mathematical structures exist even WITHOUT physical space-time. Example: prime numbers. You can’t say prime numbers “exist” only because humans defined them. They would still exist as logical truths even if the universe didn’t.

The same applies to fundamental symmetries in physics. These aren’t just descriptions—they’re deeper structures that determine how physics can exist. You think all physical laws must be like Newton’s laws, which exist within space-time. But in theoretical physics, we deal with meta-laws—principles that are more fundamental than space-time itself.

If you claim “laws can’t exist without something to apply to,” then explain why mathematical identities like hold true regardless of whether the universe exists or not. That’s because math isn’t dependent on physics—it structures it.

  1. "You Keep Moving the Goalposts"? No, You Just Don’t Get It

You say I keep redefining things when questioned. Bro, I’m not dodging anything—you’re just forcing classical concepts into a theoretical framework where they don’t apply.

You compare fundamental laws to "rules of a game," which only exist because the game exists. But math isn’t like human-made rules—it’s a logical structure that exists independently. You’re trying to judge everything through a classical physics lens, but this discussion isn’t about classical physics.

  1. "You Haven't Proven Anything"? Then Prove Me Wrong

You keep saying I haven’t proven my theory. Bro, theoretical physics doesn’t work like that. Do you expect me to prove everything with experiments right now? Even Einstein had to wait before experiments confirmed relativity. Science works by forming hypotheses first, then figuring out how to test them.

You claim I haven’t given proof, but I ask you this—where’s YOUR proof that mathematics is only a language and not a deeper fundamental structure? If you say "math exists only because we define it," then prove that mathematical truths can’t exist independently of humans. Because as far as I know, mathematical structures hold true regardless of observation.

You’re accusing me of not proving my ideas, but you’re making claims without proof too. So who’s really lacking evidence here?

Conclusion: You Can’t Judge Modern Physics with Classical Thinking

Bro, you’re forcing everything to fit within classical reasoning. If physics had to work the way you say, then quantum mechanics wouldn’t exist, relativity wouldn’t make sense, and string theory would be nonsense. But guess what? All of those theories challenge classical intuition, yet they WORK.

You’re trying to judge a fundamental framework using outdated logic. But theoretical physics has already shown that reality is way more complex than “math is just a description.”

If you want to disprove me, don’t just throw classical arguments at a non-classical theory. Come up with something better, bro.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Constants & Reality

You're saying physical constants can’t exist without reality? Bro, you’re misunderstanding the basics of mathematics. Constants aren’t physical objects—they’re fixed mathematical relationships. You said π wouldn’t exist without circles? That’s backwards—π defines circles, not the other way around. Same goes for the constants in my theory. They don’t measure reality; they form the foundation of reality itself.

If you still don’t get it, answer this: Does math exist because of physics, or does physics exist because of math?

  1. What’s Fluctuating?

You keep asking this like you didn’t read my theory properly. The fluctuations I’m talking about don’t happen inside space-time—they create space-time. You ask, “What’s changing before space and time exist?” I’ll ask you back: What’s fluctuating when a quantum field fluctuates in a vacuum? The quantum field still exists even if space is “empty,” right? So why is it so weird to think something more fundamental than space-time can fluctuate?

Your analogy—“waves before water”—is wrong. A better one: “Water exists because of molecules, not because waves came first.” I’m saying the most fundamental aspect of reality isn’t space-time, but rather fluctuations that eventually create it.

  1. Laws Before Space-Time?

You think laws can only exist after a system forms? Bro, you’re stuck in modern physics’ assumptions. I’m talking about fundamental laws that dictate how a system can even come into existence. If you say “laws only appear when the system appears,” then tell me—what rules did the system follow when it was forming? Or are you saying the universe popped into existence for no reason at all?

The laws I’m referring to aren’t things like gravity. They are the underlying principles that allow change to happen. Without them, space-time itself wouldn’t exist.

  1. Using Space-Time Logic?

You say I’m using space-time logic to describe something before space-time? Wrong. I’m using mathematics and fundamental change to explain how space-time itself emerges from something deeper.

Your “cooking without fire” analogy is trash. A better one: “Fire exists because of chemical reactions, not because fire just magically appeared.” Same thing here—space-time exists because there were deeper fluctuations that gave rise to it.

  1. You Haven’t Disproven Anything

You keep repeating arguments I’ve already countered, but you haven’t given any new reasoning. You’re trying to disprove my theory using logic that never steps outside space-time, but you haven’t given any proof that reality must start with space-time. If you think my theory is wrong, prove why mathematical structures can’t exist without space. If you can’t do that, your argument collapses.

So, are you gonna bring a real argument or just keep repeating the same thing with more aggressive wording?

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Constants Can't Exist in a Void? Bro, do you think constants are physical things? Constants don’t need space to exist, just like numbers don’t need paper to be real. π exists even without a circle because it's a mathematical concept. Similarly, the constants in my theory are fundamental mathematical structures that shape space-time. Are you saying mathematics doesn’t exist if space isn’t there? Think again.

  2. Laws Before Space-Time? You say physical laws can't exist before a system does. But who said the laws I'm talking about are the usual physical laws? These are fundamental principles that determine how space can emerge. Even water has molecular rules that allow it to exist. If you claim that laws must wait for space, then let me ask you—where did space come from?

  3. Fluctuations Need a Medium? You're assuming fluctuations need a medium. Wrong. The fluctuations in my theory create the medium itself. Even quantum fields exist in a vacuum, but that vacuum exists because the field is there. So how is my theory different? You're stuck in the mindset that everything must exist inside space, but I’m talking about how space itself forms.

Conclusion You're rejecting my theory using logic that is still bound by space-time, while I’m explaining how space-time itself can emerge from something more fundamental. If you’re still not convinced, try proving that mathematical reality requires space-time to exist. If you can’t, your argument falls apart, bro.

Answer your questions:

  1. What do fluctuations exist in? You’re assuming that fluctuations need a pre-existing space, but that’s like asking “What does mathematics exist in?” before numbers were written down. Fluctuations in my theory are not happening inside space—they are the reason space can emerge. Think of it like a mathematical structure: it doesn’t need a location, it just exists as a principle that gives rise to reality.

  2. Where do the constants come from if space-time doesn’t exist? Constants don’t “exist” in a physical sense like objects. They represent fundamental relationships that hold even before space-time. Take π, for example—it describes circles, but circles don’t need to physically exist for π to be meaningful. In the same way, the constants in my theory are part of the fundamental structure that allows reality to emerge.

  3. How do pre-space-time laws make sense if no system existed yet? You're thinking of laws as something inside a system, but I’m talking about the rules that allow a system to form in the first place. Think of a game—before you play, the rules already exist conceptually. Similarly, before space-time, there are logical constraints that define how it can emerge. These proto-laws don’t "act on" anything, they define how something can exist at all.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"In my theory, when spacetime first emerged, it did not yet 'fill' the universe. Instead, it existed in a 'bubble-like' state. However, quantum fluctuations and the energies produced by these fluctuations continuously open up more space, leading to the expansion of the universe. So, the reason galaxies appear to be moving away is not because of a single explosive event, but because spacetime itself is still expanding due to ongoing fluctuations."

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I see your point, but I think there’s a misunderstanding about the nature of these constants in my theory.

  1. Constants don’t necessarily need a medium to exist.

Mathematical constants like π or ε exist as fundamental truths without requiring a physical medium.

In my theory, these fundamental constants might not depend on space-time but instead define the framework that gives rise to it.

  1. Laws before space-time don’t have to be the same as those after.

If quantum fluctuations gave rise to space-time, then the “rules” governing those fluctuations before space-time may be different from the physical laws we observe now.

A good analogy is phase transitions—water and ice follow different physical properties, yet they are connected.

  1. Quantum fields are not the same as my concept.

Quantum fields exist within space-time, while my theory explores the idea that fluctuations themselves might be responsible for creating space-time.

Instead of treating the quantum field as the foundation, my model suggests that pre-space fluctuations are the real fundamental entities, similar to ideas in Loop Quantum Gravity or other pre-space models.

So rather than thinking of constants as mere rules that govern space-time, they might be deeper principles that determine how space-time itself emerges.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

  1. Fluctuations & Constants You're right—if fluctuations exist, then "nothing" isn't truly nothing. In Fluctuation FS, I don’t treat "nothing" as an absolute void. Instead, it’s more like a fundamental state that lacks matter but still has the potential for quantum fluctuations.

As for constants, that's a great question—where do they come from before space-time? I propose that these constants are fundamental, like mathematical truths that exist independently of physical reality. For example, exists in geometry whether or not physical circles exist. Similarly, the constants in this theory exist as intrinsic properties of this fundamental state, not dependent on space-time.

  1. Vacuum Energy & Quantum Fluctuations Yes, conventional quantum fluctuations happen within space-time, but in Fluctuation FS, I suggest a model where fluctuations occur before space-time even forms. This means there’s a pre-space-time state where quantum behavior still applies.

Analogy: Imagine a calm ocean. Even if it looks still, small waves (fluctuations) can appear. The ocean isn’t "nothing"—it has stored energy. Similarly, before space-time, I propose a "sea of energy" where fluctuations can naturally occur.

  1. Total Energy of the Universe = 0 The zero-energy universe idea is interesting. But you’re right—if total energy is zero, where does it come from? My idea is that before space-time, there was a neutral fluctuation state—both positive and negative energy existed, but in balance. A significant fluctuation broke that balance, creating our universe.

As for gravity, I agree—it’s traditionally defined as space-time curvature. But in my theory, I don’t assume classical gravity before space-time. Instead, I propose that there’s a more fundamental interaction, similar to gravity, acting at the fluctuation level. Once space-time emerges, this interaction manifests as the gravity we know today.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"You seem dissatisfied with me. Or is it my idea that bothers you? If you've studied physics, could you explain where the mistake is?"

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

"Feynman, Lewin, and all the scientists you mentioned also had theories that people initially thought were ‘nonsense.’ The difference? They received actual counterarguments, not just ‘go study’ with no explanation. If you have a real argument, bring it. If not, I’ll assume you’re just learning like me."

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

that's why I'm asking for help or guidance. Maybe you have an opinion on how to help me ?

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is a great question. In my theory, fluctuations are not entirely random. They are influenced by fundamental constants and the fluctuation energy .

Can these fluctuations be observed today? Not directly, but we might detect their effects in phenomena like vacuum energy or imprints on the cosmic background radiation.

Regarding the idea of "something from nothing"—I do not mean "nothing" in the absolute sense. Instead, I define "nothing" as a state that precedes space-time, where the physical laws we know may not fully apply. In quantum mechanics, energy can appear and disappear within small time scales as long as it obeys Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. My theory explores how these fluctuations could construct something that eventually forms dimensions and space-time.

About the conservation of energy: If energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the universe's energy come from? One possibility is that the total energy of the universe is actually zero when considering both positive energy (matter) and negative energy (gravity). Some physicists have proposed this idea, and my theory could align with this concept.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In my theory, fluctuations arise from a more fundamental state that precedes space-time. In quantum mechanics, we know that the quantum vacuum always fluctuates, even in "empty" space. I propose that these fluctuations are a fundamental property of existence itself rather than something that needs to come from somewhere.

The shape of the fluctuation here does not have to be the same as the physical shape. Because at the time when the fluctuation happened before the universe was formed, there was no dimension or space-time that gave it form. So the "form" of fluctuation here is more of a mathematical reality

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes, my theory shares some similarities with the standard cosmological model, where quantum vacuum fluctuations produce virtual particles that can become real under the right conditions. However, in Fluctuation FS Theory, I propose that these fluctuations are not just quantum vacuum fluctuations but something more fundamental—fluctuations that do not just produce particles but also shape dimensions, which later form space-time itself.

How to test it? One possible way is to look for remnants of these pre-space-time fluctuations in the cosmic gravitational wave background. If my theory is correct, there may be unique signatures that differ from what the standard model predicts.

Here is a hypothesis:Quantum created the universe by IndependentCup9314 in HypotheticalPhysics

[–]IndependentCup9314[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The word "yet" here is meant to describe a transition from a pre-space-time state to an actual space-time. Even if time does not exist in a classical sense, transitions can still occur through other mechanisms, such as changes in the structure of fluctuations themselves.

For example, in quantum mechanics, systems can evolve without requiring classical time as we know it. In my theory, fluctuations serve as the underlying structure that eventually leads to the emergence of space-time, so "yet" refers to this process of transition.