You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
0

[–] Frenchgeek ago 

The Void is a mathematical construct from the extrapolation of the equations describing the Universe as a black hole ( in matter of its life cycle at least ) : it is the surrounding "element" of the hypothetical point where everything started.

Later experiments in quantum physics have shown a void can experience local fluctuation in energy ( while the net amount of it in the whole system remain zero ), which make the virtual origin point a workable possibility.

The same equations describing hte expansion of the Universe and thermodynamics described a point where the Universe was containg nothing but light ( photons are so simple they came first ) and since there is nothing for that light to disappear to and since it also was freaking everywhere, adding to it the effect of the expansion of the Universe ( currently measured by the doppler effect on nearby and not so nearby galaxies ) we concluded, still using raw unfiltered maths, a global radio background energy of a very specific power and frequency.

AND WE FRIGGING FOUND IT EVERYWHERE WE LOOKED.

So to answer your question : We tested it by testing the consequences of it and not finding alternate explanations that fit better the data.

0
0

[–] 9-11 ago 

Later experiments in quantum physics have shown a void can experience local fluctuation in energy

conveniently already with an x,y,z space existing and time ticking away already. The experiments you speak of showing the quantum fluxuations are only possible for brief instants under specific conditions and have demonstrably shown that the larger the mass the briefer the existence, not the other way around. This essentially destroys the entire theory that you seem to be taking on "faith alone".

equations of thermo and expansion of the universe

you cannot use empirically derived formulas to prove anything. I'm not anti-science, i tend to think the evidence of the CBR does in fact show the early expansion of the universe, but you are specifically talking about the "time" before the big bang when time literally didnt exist, not to mention matter, or the xyz plane of space.

0
0

[–] Frenchgeek ago 

This essentially destroys the entire theory that you seem to be taking on "faith alone".

http://gizmodo.com/astronomers-discover-first-direct-proof-of-the-big-bang-1545525927
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

And the origin point is not a prerequisite for the theory to work, it is merely a mundane way to explain the mathematics of it, and the mathematics are derived from what we see of the Universe today, what we should expect to find left of the younger Universe and we keep finding evidence predicted by the theory.

You cannot use empirically derived formulas to prove anything.

Congratulations, you just decided physics was wrong.