🚀 go-pugleaf

               I have obviously failed to explained the physics behind my
          Physical objection to Vacuum Genesis.  So at the risk of beating
          a dead horse lets run it through one more time.

               The result of Enstein's and Hubble's work indicated that
          space it itself expanding.  The standard analogy is that of the
          surface of a balloon.  Paint galaxies on a balloon, and then blow
          up the balloon.  Every galaxy gets further away from all others.

               If you let the air out of the balloon you run the universe
          backward.  If you suck all the air out of a perfect balloon you
          get the Big Bang particle. 

               The surface of a balloon is a 2 dimensional equivalent of
          our universe.  Of course, all school kids ask why we can't travel
          through the inside of the balloon instead of only on its surface. 
          That is where the analogy breaks down, we are *bound* to the
          equivalent of the surface of that balloon, and *ALL* the physics
          we know about concerns that surface - NOTHING ELSE!

               What does this have to do with vacuum genesis?  All the
          "vacuum" that scientists have ever observed was created by the
          big bang, just all the space between the dots on the balloon were
          created by blowing up the balloon.  Since "Big Bang" vacuum is
          the only vacuum that has ever been observed, scientists simply
          have *NO* empirical data of the vacuum that the "Vacuum Genesis
          Particle" would have arisen out of.  Matthew P Wiener in his note
          of June 27, suggested that the vacuum genesis particle would have
          been created in "the vacuum that modern physicists have been
          studying all along."  That statement just ain't true.  To return
          to the balloon analogy, it would be the same as saying the space
          on the surface of the balloon is *identical* with the air in
          which we blow up the balloon.

               Thus we arrive at the basis of my objection.  Present
          Physics states that not only all matter and energy but all space
          and time were created in the Big Bang.  Yet, Vacuum Genesis
          attempts to "reserve" some of that space-time for the Big Bang
          Particle to be created in.  This does not preclude the
          possibility of Vacuum Genesis, but it does *require* the
          assumption of another universe that obeys the same physical laws
          as our universe.  Physics cannot have its cake and eat it too. 
          Either space-time is bounded by the Big Bang and thus we need
          another universe for the Big Bang, or some our universe "leaked"
          from the Big Bang, and there is something very wrong with
          relativity and few other things.

               Some consequences.  1.) If there is some other universe in
          which our universe was created, then we have *no* scientific
          knowledge of it.  The reason is simple.  Science is based on
          empirical observations of the "physical" world where "physical"
          has come to mean something created in the Big Bang (either matter
          or energy).  By definition we cannot observe things outside our
          Big Bang created universe, thus while we can create theories by
          the ton (it is called speculation) we have no way to
          "scientifically" test them.

               2.) There is no reason to believe that our physical laws
          apply to any other universe.  This follows from 1.) and Hume's
          skepticism on inductive logic.

               3.) A infinite regress of "vacuum genesis" creation
          sequences is not a "scientifically" acceptable theory because it
          has a zero probability.  The probability of the creation of an
          ultra energetic particle via the uncertainty principle is
          extremely small.  If it is necessary to have two such events then
          the probability is extremely small number squared.  The
          probability of an infinite number of such events is an extremely
          small number raised to an infinite power - which is zero!  Thus,
          if one must postulate an infinite number of vacuum genesis
          events, I can prove that the universe doesn't exist!

               Well 600 words later, and I find myself just as inclined to
          unsubscribe to this group as I am to send this note.  Rather than
          waste what feeble brain power is left to decide the issue, I
          leave it to my readers to decide.

                                             Edouard Lagache
                                             School of Education
                                             U.C. Berkeley
                                             lagache@violet.berkeley.edu