No, I won't read it. You read it. run it through your brain, and come up with an opinion. Then ask us if we can buy into your idea, or not.

Posting a link to an article about a 'deep' topic and then asking, "what do you think?" is the easy and lazy way of doing things. We want to see you suffer more for your philosophy.

Posting a link to an article about a 'deep' topic and then asking, "what do you think?" is the easy and lazy way of doing things. We want to see you suffer more for your philosophy. — Bitter Crank

It is right on and correct and is in accord with so much that I've posted on the subject of QFT. I only just now discovered his article of a year ago.

We want to see you suffer more for your philosophy. — Bitter Crank

No suffering; only joy. My own slant on QFT that goes all the way:

‘Nothing’ Cannot Obtain;
The Simple Fundamental Something is Ever

Something is and a lack of anything isn’t.

To be Fundamental the Something cannot have parts, else the parts would be more Fundamental, and so there cannot be an infinite regress of lesser and lesser parts. Composites cannot be Fundamental. ‘God’ is out; impossible. Neither can be a lasting template of the lesser ever having to come from the greater, ad infinitum. The logic herein matches the cascade from the least to the greater that’s seen in our universe.

There cannot be a sequence in time from a lack of anything to Something because ‘Nothing’ has no time, nor anything; thus the Something cannot appear spontaneously, as if there was ‘Nothing’ and then there became Something, and besides, ‘Nothing’ cannot have being anyway.

Thus the Fundamental Simplest Partless Something has to be ever, as Eternal; it has no alternative. It is also Continuous because there cannot be any spacers of ‘Nothing’ in it and it is also Eternal because it cannot be made of parts that it can’t have and because it cannot broken into parts because there aren’t any. It is ungenerated and deathless. It was there before the Big Bang and exists ever after. The Bang was from the Something. A ‘Beginning’ and ‘End’ to the Something is impossible. This shows the multiverse.

Why isn’t the Something Still, never doing anything? If the Something has Stillness, then naught would happen. Scientifically, the uncertainty principle indicates that ‘Stillness’ is impossible. The Something is ever in motion; it is energetic. We don’t need all the proof when we have the truth.

From what can it form entities? It can only form entities of itself, as that’s all there is. In short, its motion as fluctuations makes for a wave nature that allows the elementary forms to be quanta of its excitations at stable rungs that grant some persistence. See Quantum Field Theory (QFT). We know that the elementaries of a type are identical and so that also tells us that they are directly quanta forms, plus that they can be annihilated shows us that they are secondary.

Why are the elementaries so minuscule? The Something as the simplest is lightweight and then so must be the elementaries.

Can the metaphysical creep back in as a hyperphysical substance to be the Something? No, the elementaries are physical and they are the quanta of the Something and so the Something is physical. What the elementaries go on to form is also physical. There can’t be anything esoteric about matter and forces.

What of the fluctuations of the Something that don’t reach a quantum energy level? They are the so-called virtual particles that ever come and go.

Can the virtuals ever persist more? If there was inflation, it would drive them apart quicker than they could annihilate.

What is the Something? It has to be the quantum ‘vacuum’ fields, for the proposed absolutes of time, space, and particles making fields have fallen by the wayside.

Are there things? The quantum ‘vacuum’ is the only thing; all else are events. A tree is a long event; the sun is a longer one; a proton’s life is very long; photons don’t decay on their own. Events come and go.

So, we and all the temporaries that the Permanent Something forms are consigned to oblivion? Yes, even the universe, but the Permanent ever remains and all is of its fields.

Well, there’s no ‘Separation’ at heart, but we and all as field forms must fade, the universe unwinding like a spring, no matter our grand complexities that outdo in scale that of the Simplest. We always knew that the Theory of Everything (TOE) would be boring in its simplicity.

What if a universe just doesn’t work? Some will, like ours does, although ours is not near to the best or near to the worst. It’s just OK.

Good! That's what I'm talking about. Now, QM and multiple universes are way beyond my ken. Other people here will share your joy in this.

Thus the Fundamental Simplest Partless Something has to be ever, as Eternal; it has no alternative. It is also Continuous because there cannot be any spacers of ‘Nothing’ in it and it is also Eternal because it cannot be made of parts that it can’t have and because it cannot broken into parts because there aren’t any. — PoeticUniverse

Sounds as if you talk about God! I thought to myself, should I let the PoeticUniverse just be happy in his happiness, or shall I tell the harsh physical reality and make his world collapse? It's better though that you decide it yourself! Shall I set you free from your happiness, out of that blissful state of contentment and empathic understanding? Or shall I confront you with the maybe disappointing grim reality of the world of particles, thereby pulling the ground of existence away from below your feet? It's up to you.

Sounds as if you talk about God! — Raymond

Hail to 'God' the Simpleton!

Good stuff (i.e. I agree with the gist), except that you seem to confuse nothing and nothing-ness – physical and metaphysical – the respective implications of each term I briefly ruminate on (and my next post). Also, my wtf on the "multiverse" . :sweat:

I think the multiverse is lame. It's a good plot device for resurrecting dead characters, and that's it. How redundant are infinite worlds? Completely redundant. People get wishy-washy about it, like it's based on their choices, which is only equally as stupid as a different universe for each separate way a blade of grass is turned. Sean Carol...bizarrely myopic.