SCIENCE IN THE SHADOW OF METAPHYSICS Part 2 -The Issue of Existence

Full text

SCIENCE
METAPHYSICS
Part 2 - The Issue of Existence
Rough Draft 2020
First Draft 05 July 2022
05 July 2022
All rights reserved
Ziaedin Shafiei

Contents
The miracle of existence ............................................................................................................................. 2
The fundamental question ......................................................................................................................... 5
Singularity ................................................................................................................................................... 6
Nothing Hypothesis .................................................................................................................................... 9
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle ........................................................................................................... 18
Zero Net Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Something hypothesis ............................................................................................................................... 37
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................. 42
Appendix A ............................................................................................................................................... 44
Inflation Theory ..................................................................................................................................... 44

The Issue of Existence
2
The miracle of existence
The dramatic and intricate life on our planet in its open-roof
mega-structure amphitheatre has always been awe inspiring to
human. It has never failed to surprise humanity with its ability to
produce countless supper high tech creatures in any nook and cranny
of the Earth. We yet to catch up with, or better to say, hardly
comprehend its mysteries and depth of its complexities, even as our
knowledge is continuously growing in all diverse disciplines of
science. But, while life has incessantly been churning out
sophisticated products and graceful beauty, it comes hand in hand
with death which highlights life’s mysterious and unfathomable
emptiness, indifference, puzzlement, insecurity and cruelty.
On the other hand, human has the false expectation that life
should provide one with an indestructible physique and a magic
wand for fulfilling one’s endless desire and pleasure. In short, human
wants to be invincible and pampered eternally to be content enough
to count life as a desirable phenomenon. Maybe the idea of paradise
is one consequence of this desire.
Life, however, obeys the laws of the nature with no exemption
whatsoever. In other words, there is absolutely no special treatment
for all, a few or even one individual and definitely there is no
miracle. Miracle, according to this definition, is merely another
human’s creation or imagination. It, nonetheless, discloses this
simple fact that even primitive individuals and societies correctly
identified that there are some unbreakable laws which they wrongly
imagined might be occasionally broken only by some supernatural
causes.
Human has been trying hard to find these laws and the assumed
causes of their suspensions from eternity. The creation of the deities

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
3
of the Greek pantheon on Mount Olympus, sky and underworld
combined with Greek mythology were examples of the intellectual
attempts for explaining the apparent unpredictability and justifying
chaotic and disconcerting nature of life. These whimsical deities
such as the twelve unruly Olympians were supposed to rule the
otherwise law-abiding universe.
Primitive people and societies could be excused not being capable
enough to figure out the real unbreakable laws. Their worldviews
thus were ranged from putting their hope in a hopeless boulder or
figurine to creating their own creation story, philosophy of life and
its destination. Superstition can be regarded as something between
these two trends. Belief in miracle has been however a common
theme of any human explanatory effort and continued thriving under
the protection of various ensuing religions which has bestowed it
with deep-seated acceptability in every culture as a glimmer of hope
in depressing and hard to cope life.
On the other hand, we are overjoyed by the birth of our own
children, a mundane occurrence in nature for many hundred million
years. We consider it a beautiful and priceless miracle and gift
regardless of our level of scientific knowledge and intellectual
affiliations. The miracle of a new-born and life cannot be easily
dismissed but if one insists to believe in these types of miracles
surely none can be compared to the miracle of existence.
Life, though mystifying, is just an aspect of existence. Life may
one day be fully explained and be recreated by scientists but
existence will not. Even the big bang theory, and its upshots or
revised versions, do not explain the root of existence; they simply
unfold the transformation and rapid expansion of a supposed
primeval seed to what we know as our existing universe. What it
cannot explain, if we accept the big bang theory, is the very existence

The Issue of Existence
4
of that amazing seed or state let alone its environment or history
before the bang1.
In fact, until recently, existence was literally a miracle to science.
The first law of thermodynamics, one of the absolute physical laws
of our universe, implies that neither matter nor energy can be created
or destroyed. They can merely be converted to different forms of
each other. Needless to say, that the universe is full of them, more
than one’s wildest imagination; how then we could explain their
existence in science without resorting to some kind of once in a
universe-time miracle, an ever-existing miracle! Science, though,
does not admit to miracle and it initially declared that this question
was outside its domain or magisterium. It would only try to
understand the world as it presented itself. In short, the common
belief among scientists was that science was not able to extend its
strong arm beyond the universe to examine the farfetched issue of
existence.
To use Feynman’s analogy, domain of science did not include the
study of the origin of the chess board and pieces. One is seeing the
chess game is played and gradually tries to find out what the rule of
the game is and perhaps what the chess board and the pieces are
made of. One cannot figure out, say, how it was brought to existence.
In fact, classical science has a hidden assumption or dogma that there
is no direct knowledge of what happens, if any, outside of the
universe. What happened without the universe was considered to be
beyond empirical investigation and analysis and therefore the
domain of pure metaphysical speculation or perhaps divine
revelation. It is not long time ago when Penrose and Hawkins
proposed that the Big Bang had its root or existence in singularity,
shutting the door of science to any further experimental or theoretical
investigations by scientists in both pre-big bang era and the very
genesis of the universe.
1 Vacuum fluctuation will be discussed later on in this document.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
5
The fundamental question
Excluding the archaic creation stories of primitive societies, what
has been the result of independent human mental endeavour to the
question of existence? So far, scientists, philosophers and sages of
ages have been awestruck by this mysterious issue and have only
been able to articulate their wonder as the most fundamental
question;
"Why is there something rather than nothing?"
Where did all the contents of the universe come from? Nowadays,
there exists, off course, various theories that try to extend the domain
of science beyond our world. In reality, majority of them are based
on a mixture of pure speculations and extrapolation of speculations,
which will be looked at in enough detail. To start with we should
make it clear that in the big bang cosmology there are only three
options available to any enquirer including scientists and
philosophers. They are:
1. Singularity: Any reference to “before the big bang” is
meaningless as we reach the definitive blind alley for science,
the guardian and proponent of empirical enquiry
2. Nothing hypothesis: Before the existence of our universe there
was absolutely nothing
3. Something hypothesis: Before the existence of our universe
there was something
This must be a favourable condition for everyone in search of the
very existence of the universe, as human has narrowed down this
essential investigation to only three options in the horizon. But the

The Issue of Existence
6
difficulty starts from here. Let highlight those difficulties in each
case.
Singularity
According to one interpretation of quantum mechanics, some
physicists believe myriad universes are continuously created. For
example, if a horse blinks its eyes, a whole new parallel universe is
created in which the same horse does not do so and so on and so
forth. However, this kind of metaphysical creation is not taken
seriously. In fact, since the big bang theory was established, it has
been assumed that the universe at its birth could not have been the
same size or a mini version of what it is today. There is no scientific
answer to this kind of sudden appearance of a readymade universe
as among other countless puzzles it is contrary to the first law of
thermodynamics. Therefore, it has been assumed that the smallest
possible size at birth such as a mysterious primeval atom could
somehow solve the dilemma for science, as sketched in Figure 1.
Figure 1 – Explainable and Inexplicable Universe at Birth

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
7
Singularity, however, indicates that the existing theories cannot
properly explain a minimum size genesis too. According to those
theories the density and temperature of the universe sprint towards
infinity as we go back in time - for about 13.8 billion years - to get
much closer to the birth of our universe when it had close to zero
size living space. The conclusion is that we need new theories which
do not produce infinity. Another option is to amend the existing
theories. For example, inflation cosmology, if true, have solved the issue
of infinite density by proposing a second phase of creation. It allows the
limitless creation of pure matter – not matter-antimatter pairs - in an
existing universe by an ad hoc process. The infinite temperature, however,
has not been clearly addressed.
There are other twists to the story. Cosmic microwave
background (CMB) radiation indicates that the universe was hotter
in the past as a result of an explosion. This earliest evidence from the
universe has been calculated to be emitted about 380,000 years after
the assumed big bang. Very high temperature and density are also
needed to justify the gradual emergence and evolution of the world
within its laws. With this understanding, any future theory cannot
escape singularity if CMB observation, gradual development and
point size birth are all accommodated. Hence any such theory not
only may not eliminate the issues of a big size new-born but also
adds some other monstruous difficulties if insists on starting with a
point size universe. Nevertheless, against all wisdom and Occam’s
razor principle, the almost zero size new-born universe has been the
size of choice for some cosmologists.
With these apparently unavoidable choices, the only option is to
bury all the unsolved birth puzzles of a big size universe, such as the
existence of various rigid laws, forces and particles, flatness and
minimum value of entropy2, under a Plank size universe with the
2 Entropy of the universe at the big bang was S = 1088kB where kB is Boltzmann
constant.

The Issue of Existence
8
banner of singularity. We may call this misuse of singularity as
Theory of Hiding Everything (TOHE).
Benefit of point-size-universe approach is that the gradual
appearance and formation of the fundamental forces, all standard
subatomic particles, stars, galaxies and planets can be explained with
passing of time under the banner of emergence. Moreover, some
events had to be accomplished pretty fast and immediately after the
birth of the universe. For example, a few of the characteristics of the
universe, such as its flatness, has been selected for rapid early
rectifications. Those early developments are explained away by a
new bang, ad hoc laws and miraculous events. Meanwhile, we have
to take the existence of the laws of physics and chemistry, the
fundamental forces of nature, the formation and structure of all
particles and molecules for granted. Discovering them is considered
as enough explanation whereas discovering a new-born universe
about the size of our solar system, a grapefruit or even a pea is not
scientifically acceptable.
There is another undesirable side effect of using singularity as a
hiding umbrella. It allows scientists to explain only one or more but
not all necessary issues when they try to pitch for their proposed
theories of early universe. For example, some scientists believe that
if they could create a scenario with very high temperature in any
particle collider, they in fact have recreated the condition of early
universe. The higher the temperature the closer they are to the birth
and early development of the universe3.
If we can accept this interpretation, it has been possible to recreate
the state of the universe back to 10-13 seconds. From 10-13s to the
time of birth is not experimentally verified.
3 Early universe recreated in LHC was superhot liquid | New Scientist, Olivier
Dessibourg, 25 November 2010.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
9
Nothing Hypothesis
Some scientists go one step further. They think the creation of the
universe is much more explicable if we wipe everything, which
singularity tried to hide, and start with nothing.
This option has another clear advantage. It gives the searcher the
luxury of not inconveniencing oneself with the trouble of finding or
conjuring up the enigmatic something in option three, i.e., something
hypothesis. However, the proponents of nothing theory have a hard
time explaining on how to create something from nothing
convincingly and meanwhile not defying the laws of
thermodynamics and physics.
This idea has a long history and has been suggested by both
atheists and theists. Most theists, including the followers of
mainstream religions, have used this concept to explain the creation
of universe by God out of nothing, i.e., Creatio ex-nihilo. On the
other hand, the now discounted steady state model of the universe,
initially accepted by all renowned and distinguished scientists such
as Einstein and championed by Sir Fred Hoyle, Hermann Bondi and
Thomas Gold (HBG) has to rely on continuous creation of energy
and matter out of nothing. Einstein added the cosmological constant
to his field equation to counterbalance the force of gravity, making
sure steady state theory is satisfied.
Before the second world war, almost all top cosmologist and
astrophysicists preferred the static model of the universe. That is, the
shift from static model did not happen immediately after the
expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble’s historical
observation. Steady state model was firmly replaced by big bang
cosmology only in the 1960s. The turning point was the discovery of
cosmic microwave background radiation by Penzias and Wilson in
1965. The proponents of steady state cosmology, however, assumed
that keeping the average density of universe constant was necessary

The Issue of Existence
10
to partially salvage steady state model. Therefore, HBG proposed
continuous creation of matter out of nothing to promptly fill up the
empty space in the wake of its continuous expansion. A revised
version of the theory dubbed as Quasi-Steady-State Cosmology
Model was also proposed which relied on countless mini-bangs - in
contrast to one big bang creation idea.
These creation theories, proposed by distinguished scientists and
mathematicians, were not based on any experiment and their
observational account was purely speculative. The proponents of the
theory even derived a few formulas for their matter creation4.
Nevertheless, they had no option but to confess to this unscientific
approach5:
“We shall now attempt to consider some of the details of the
physical process of creation. The discussion must necessarily be
somewhat speculative…”
“Accordingly we assume that the rate of creation is everywhere
about 10-43 g. per sec. per cm3, although variations by a factor of,
say 100, are quite permissible. … Accordingly we cannot expect
the process to be directly observable.”
Evidently, frantic pseudoscientific behaviour of HBG, fully
supported by complicated mathematical analysis and derivation,
show the contempt some scientists have garnered for real science.
For them the objective is wining an argument by any mean not
finding the fact. Thus, proposing any theory is allowed and justified
as long as it provides a prediction. It was noticed that the proponents
of the steady state theory confessed that their prediction was not only
4 For example, see F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, J. V. Narlikar; A quasi-steady state
cosmological model with creation of matter. The Astrophysical Journal, 1993,
410, 437–457.
5 H. Bondi, T. Gold, The Steady-State Theory of the Expanding Universe Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 1948, 108, P252-270.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
11
inaccurate but also non-observable. This behaviour only helps to
bring the bar of science to the level of clairvoyance. What is a
clairvoyant’s expertise and business but vague prediction?
The latest recommendation by some scientists who still insists on
creating the universe from nothing is to redefine or rediscover
nothing as something. It has succinctly been phrased as “Nothing is
not nothing. Nothing is something”6.
One might think that this new idea is similar to the concept of
invisible aether introduced by Aristotle to physics. He thought the
existence of empty space is impossible as otherwise subjects could
move infinitely fast within it. Though the new idea also claims that
the empty space is seething with virtual energy and various particles
but the justification is quite different and not straightforward. It
depends on a specific definition of nothing and several conditions,
assumptions, extrapolations and theories which strangely enough
cannot be defined, individually or collectively, as nothing.
The idea starts with defining nothing as empty space. Then they
uncover something in the empty space based on quantum fluctuation
theory. The theory is based on extrapolating the uncertainty principle
from position-momentum of subatomic particles to time-energy.
They subsequently claim that it is not possible to accurately measure
energy in a very short time interval or exact measurement of energy
at exact time is impossible.
But their mindboggling conclusion is that energy and
subsequently pairs of particles-antiparticles can come into existence
for a very short time and then disappear back to nowhere. Alternative
interpretations are “a quantum state with a very short existence time
cannot have a definite energy” and “an empty space can have a non-
zero energy associated with it”.
6 Neil deGrasse Tyson in praise of Lawrence M. Krauss’s book; A Universe from
Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, Simon & Schuster, Sept.
2012.

The Issue of Existence
12
Then, according to one theory, it is imagined that in the beginning
somehow fluctuating energy and its associated particles, “possibly
about a hundred-billionth the size of a proton”7 which were supposed
to quickly disappear back to nothing, could somehow stay put while
the pair particles possessed vast amount of energy. With the
existence of such ultra-high-energy, no explanation is provided as to
why only such small pair particles were produced and not proton-
antiproton pairs. Somehow the antiparticle was put aside and its pair
particle with colossal temperature shouldered the responsibility to
create a universe. It expanded rapidly, inflated, at a rate colossally
higher than the speed of light8, possibly due to separation and
domination of the strong force9.
This process was dubbed “the ultimate free lunch” by Alan Guth
as while the particle was expanding in false vacuum it was creating
more energy so that at the end of the process the quantity of the
created energy amounted to the total energy and matter of the whole
universe today. That is the total energy and matter that we can
observe and not yet been able to observe or discover. It is also
claimed that the universe was considerably cooled down during
inflation which started and then halted in a flash, between about
10−33 to 10−32 s10. The size of the universe, 10-32 s after its birth, when
the inflation phase was halted, is claimed to had been about a
grapefruit or even smaller. After the cosmic inflation, our universe
7 For example see Putting the “bang” in the Big Bang » MIT Physics
8 There is a suspicion that the existence of a very small particle and superluminal
expansion might have been proposed under the influence of early versions of string
theory.
9 Timeline of the early universe - Wikipedia Obviously there are some gaps in this
creation story. For example, it is not mentioned why temperature was decreasing
to initiate separation of fundamental forces if there was just vacuum energy and
its associated particles.
10 “… the universe began as an extremely small speck of matter, possibly about a
hundred-billionth the size of a proton. This speck was filled with ultra-high-energy
matter, so energetic that the pressures within generated a repulsive gravitational
force -- the driving force behind inflation.”, Putting the 'bang' in the Big Bang,
MIT, https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-10/miot-pt102519.php

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
13
returned to its normal Hubble expansion rate and evolved further, all
according to the laws of physics.
This new theory of creation from nothing thus accepts all popular
theories such as quantum fluctuation, uncertainty principle, big
bang, General relativity and cosmic inflation theories to accomplish
this creation story. The puzzling side of this argument is that when
the proponents of this theory think they have stretched this idea of
creation from nothing too far, they inexcusably switch to the idea of
“almost nothing”.11 Also, when there is nothing to be stretched, they
create something more out of nothing to keep going.
Following quotes describe the idea with all the assumptions
highlighted. My comment is within parentheses.
“…This is the simplest version of nothing, namely empty space.
For the moment, I will assume space exists, with nothing at all in
it, and that the laws of physics also exist. …, (two creations in
one sentence, space and laws of physics. In fact, laws can be
counted as numerous creations as one law is different from
another)
Alan Guth has explained precisely how we can get something
from this kind of nothing, the ultimate free lunch. Empty space
can have a non-zero energy associated with it, even in the
absence of any matter or radiation. General relativity tells us that
space will expand exponentially, so that even the tiniest region at
early times could quickly encompass a size more than large
enough to contain our whole visible universe today. … This is
possible because the gravitational “pressure” associated with
such energy in empty space is actually negative. This “negative
pressure” implies that, as the universe expands, the expansion
dumps energy into space rather than vice versa.
11 “I emphasize that this was a falsifiable postulate. It didn’t have to be this
way. Nothing required this except theoretical speculations based on
considerations of a universe that could have arisen naturally from nothing,
or at the very least, from almost nothing.” Lawrence M. Krauss, A Universe
from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather Than Nothing, Simon &
Schuster, 2012.

The Issue of Existence
14
According to this picture, when inflation ends, the energy stored
in empty space gets turned into an energy of real particles and
radiation, creating effectively the traceable beginning of our
present Big Bang expansion.”
“I remind you of the unique facet of a flat universe, at least on
scales where it is dominated by matter in the form of galaxies,
and where a Newtonian approximation remains valid: in a flat
universe, and only in a flat universe, the average Newtonian
gravitational energy of every object participating in the
expansion is precisely zero. …
So, if the total energy of a closed12 universe is zero, and if the
sum-over-paths formalism of quantum gravity is appropriate,
then quantum mechanically such universes could appear
spontaneously with impunity, carrying no net energy. I want to
emphasize that these universes would be completely self-
contained space-times, disconnected from our own.
There is a hitch, however. A closed expanding universe filled
with matter will in general expand to a maximum size and then
re-collapse just as quickly, ending up in a space-time singularity
...
There is a way out of this dilemma, however. If, before such a
universe can collapse, the configuration of fields within it
produces a period of inflation, then even an initially tiny closed
universe can rapidly, exponentially expand, becoming closer and
closer to an infinitely large flat universe during this period. After
one hundred or so doubling times of such inflation, the universe
will be so close to flat that it could easily last much longer than
our universe has been around without collapsing.
I cannot overstress the importance of the fact that, once gravity
is included in our considerations of nature, one is no longer free
to define the total energy of a system arbitrarily, nor the fact that
there are both positive and negative contributions to this energy.
12 One of the assumptions for the same theory proposed by Alexander
Vilenkin was that the universe must be open. See Guth, Alan H., The
Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins.
Addison Wesley, 1997, P 249.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
15
Determining the total gravitational energy of objects being
carried along by the expansion of the universe is not subject to
arbitrary definition any more than the geometric curvature of the
universe is a matter of definition. It is a property of space itself,
according to general relativity, and this property of space is
determined by the energy contained within it.”
“This is an example of something that Guth coined as the
ultimate “free lunch.” Including the effects of gravity in thinking
about the universe allows objects to have – amazingly –
“negative” as well as “positive” energy. This facet of gravity
allows for the possibility that positive energy stuff, like matter
and radiation, can be complemented by negative energy
configurations that just balance the energy of the created positive
energy stuff. In so doing, gravity can start out with an empty
universe—and end up with a filled one.” 13
This latest speculation thus initially relies on quantum vacuum
fluctuations applied to subatomic world where energy and virtual
particles are supposed to appear and quickly disappear randomly and
with no apparent cause. The interpretation is that empty space should
not be considered as nothing due to the fact that it is not empty at all
rather it is seething with both ephemeral energy and matter.
This interpretation of the uncertainty theory is thus just blurring
our query. In fact, it tries to say that there is no empty space, period.
What we used to consider as empty space is not empty at all as there
is always something in vacuum which supports the original question
that: why there is something rather than nothing?
Wherever we look, even supposedly in empty spaces, there is
something. Then the whole idea that universe is created from
nothing, as some scientists try to prove, becomes utterly baseless.
Simply, where is the logic in the argument? Why we should call a
space full of particles and energy an empty one? If a section of a
13 Krauss, Lawrence; A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather
than Nothing; Simon & Schuster 2012.

The Issue of Existence
16
river is full of fast-moving various fishes, coming in and then getting
out of the section, we cannot call it a dead river.
We should also note that virtual particles are also materialized in
internal lines of Feynman diagrams, which indicates that there might
be a cause for their temporary appearance14. Moreover, fluctuation
of energy in quantum vacuum, if correct, as we cannot directly
observe it15, is one phenomenon of this world. We cannot prove the
existence of the quantum fluctuation before the existence of the
universe. There was also no space to be either empty or full and there
was no law of physic too. In other words, and as a matter of fact it is
a mistake to isolate one manifestation of this world we have
envisioned or discovered, and give it the power of creation purely by
extrapolation.
Furthermore, scientists and engineers are not able to create perfect
vacuum to be able to test the supposed vacuum fluctuations.
Moreover, there are known matters, such as Neutrinos16, which
cannot be eliminated from any experimental chamber - above, on or
below the earth surface - to create perfect vacuum void of
everything. It is also a fact that scientists do not know even the
approximate nature and whereabouts of dark matter and dark energy.
14 “Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of
conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the
so-called virtual particles), which quickly re-join into the original particle as if
they had never been there.” Gordon Kane, director of the Michigan Center for
Theoretical Physics at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor, 2006,
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
15 It is claimed that Casimir effect is tested and thus the idea of quantum
fluctuation has experimentally proven but this is not certain as Casimir
effect is also shown to exist without reference to quantum fluctuation. R.
L. Jaffe, Casimir effect and the quantum vacuum, Phys.Rev. D72, 2005.
The supporting mathematics for Casmir effect is also dubious at best. It
relies on the so-called normalisation to prove that 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 +
6 + ⋯ = − 
 and not infinity.
16 About one hundred trillion neutrinos, mainly from the Sun and comparably
lower amount from the big bang, passes through our body every second which
cannot be shielded by any known substance. Other particles such as Muons and
photons can be easily shielded.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
17
Therefore, the real effects of these newfound stuffs within any
vacuum chamber are unknown. One infamous example of this lack
of knowledge is known as vacuum catastrophe or cosmological
constant problem. The measured value of vacuum energy density
was found to be different by 120-orders-of-magnitude in comparison
to the theoretical value of zero-point energy proposed by quantum
field theory17. Additionally, there is a possibility that some other
energies or particles are in existence which we have not yet
discovered.
In spite of the mentioned facts, it seems that some scientists still
disregarded any consequences of newfound stuffs and their physical
characteristics. They have been carrying on doing their normal work
with the old and selective realisation of the world after it has become
widely known that those worlds are obsolete or only based on the
limited knowledge of their constituents. For example, it has been
found out that mysterious dark matter and dark energy constitute
about 95% of total mass and energy of the universe. Therefore, any
scientific theory which were developed before these new discoveries
and could be affected by them needs to be carefully re-examined and
revised.
From where has the idea of vacuum fluctuations come from as we
have not been able to actually create a perfect vacuum and have not
been able to observe virtual particles? The answer or reasoning is
based on Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, corroborated by Casimir
effect, which is supposed to have been tested in vacuum, overlooking
the fact that no perfect vacuum is possible even in small chambers
in the laboratory environment.
Another weakness of this creation theory is the fact that it relies
on other feeble or impossible to empirically verified or proven
17 The main problem, however, is the known fact that “vacuum energy in quantum
field theory can be set to any value by renormalization”. Cosmological Constant
Problem, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant_problem

The Issue of Existence
18
theories and speculations. For example, according to the inflation
theory the universe, immediately after its birth, was mesmerizingly,
much higher than the speed of light, amplified to form the seed of
the universe as we are observing it today18. These statements are
beyond any empirical investigation as far as our current scientific
abilities can stretch.
Let us examine two supporting theories in more detail,
uncertainty and zero net energy principles.
Heisenberg Uncertainty principle
Almost all recent theories for creation ex nihilo are built on the
concept of vacuum fluctuations. Vacuum fluctuations originated
from Heisenberg uncertainty principle one early interpretation of
which can be briefly described as follows:
Suppose we are trying to observe a particle such as an electron or
a proton by shining a beam of light on it. The sizes of those particles
are about 10-18 and 10-15 meters, respectively, whereas the
wavelength of visible light is between 4×10-7 and 7×10-7 meters. The
schematic of the light signal, with wavelength of 5×10-7 meters, and
those particles are shown in Figure 2.
18 See Appendix A for an assessment of inflation cosmology.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
19
Figure 2 - Wavelength of light signal in comparison to particles such as
electron or proton
In the picture, we can only see a schematic of curly path of the
light signal but nothing else. The reason is that the sizes of those
particles in comparison to the wavelength of visible light are so small
that they cannot even be shown as a visible dot on the page. The size
of proton is about 500,000,000 (five hundred million) times smaller
than the wavelength of visible light and electron size is about
500,000,000,000 (five hundred billion) times smaller. A typical
visible light with such a high wavelength is thus not suitable for
accurately observing the position of the particles.
To detect the position of any of those mentioned particles more
precisely an electromagnetic ray with much lower wavelength is
required. Simply put, horses for courses. However, a suitable ray
has much higher energy which when collides with the particle affects
its momentum and direction. In other words, we cannot observe the
position of a particle with high accuracy without disturbing its
momentum, making the observation and measurement of the latter
quantity much less accurate.

The Issue of Existence
20
We should note that this insight which stemmed from a thought
experiment by Heisenberg19 is no longer accepted as a correct
interpretation of uncertainty principle by proponent of some other
modern interpretations20. In fact, no single interpretation among
several is accepted by all physicists21,22,23. So, one wonders if it is
prudent to critically analyse any topics in quantum mechanics (QM)
altogether. But as QM has been used to justify creation from nothing,
we try to do our best to figure out the basis of this assertion.
In parallel to Heisenberg’s insight, it has also been understood
that uncertainty is not only due to “experiment/observer effect” but
also due to the behaviour of matter, which is more significant in
particle level. Hence, even the simple task of finding the position of
a subatomic particle gets very complicated indeed. According to one
school of thought, position or momentum can have any
superimposed value, one of which will be revealed to the observer
when a measurement is made. In another interpretation we can only
work out the probability of finding a particle at a specific position.
This is because the movement of each particle is wavy and behaves
according to an associated wave function. Therefore, the probability
of its position is related to the square of the magnitude of
that wavefunction at any point. This concept is referred to as Born
Rule.
Based on yet another interpretation we cannot measure any single
physical quantity accurately in a very short time, be it position,
momentum or perhaps energy. But somehow the equation for
19 “Then the principle states that every subsequent observation of the position will
alter the momentum by an unknown and undeterminable amount such that after
carrying out the experiment our knowledge of the electronic motion is restricted
by the uncertainty relation.” The physical principles of the quantum theory,
Werner Heisenberg, Dover Publications, Inc. 1949.
20 What Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle *Actually* Means - YouTube
21 https://arxiv.org/abs/1301.1069
22 Quantum Mechanics (an embarrassment) - Sixty Symbols - YouTube
23 Explore The Vacuum Fluctuation Myth in Quantum Theory | Physics Forums

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
21
uncertainty derived for this yet enigmatic concept by Heisenberg has
been accepted by almost all physicists.
The formula is
Δρ Δx ≥ℏ/2 (1)
According to this equation and its original interpretation by
Heisenberg, uncertainty principle tries to show our inability to
accurately detect position and momentum of a particle
simultaneously. It does not tell us about their actual position and
momentum. They are as they are but we cannot have the accurate
knowledge of those quantities concurrently. In simple words the
momentum of a particle cannot be any random value. It has a specific
value at any time and at any position as, and this is important point
to note that, we can measure it with a high accuracy. But we are not
able to measure this specific momentum and the specific position of
the same particle at the same time.
The main criticism to this formula is that, it is not representative
or robust.24 Suppose we try to measure the momentum of a proton
moving inside a circular collider with arbitrary accuracy, say Δρ≈0.
Then according to the uncertainty formula Δx ≈ ∞ meaning the
position of the particle can be anywhere in the infinite universe
which obviously is not true. In fact, maximum uncertainty in the
position of the particle depends much more on the circumference of
the collider ring rather than the calculated standard deviation of
position.
Meanwhile, faith in uncertainty equation is exceptionally high. In
fact, zero-point energy has gained support from this equation. It is
assumed that the equation holds even at absolute zero – zero Kelvin
(K). That is particles do not halt at absolute zero to boast zero
momentum and specific position. It means every particle has certain
energy at that condition.
24 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-Quantum-Mechanics-consistent

The Issue of Existence
22
Somehow, position-momentum measurement uncertainty has
been extended to another pair of quantities - time and energy -
without proper justification. Therefore, there has been endless
debates on the validity of the uncertainty concept for the second pair,
such as:
 Can time be considered as an observable quantity?
 Does this pair exhibit similar principle as the position-
momentum?
 Are these variables dynamically conjugate, both in classical
and in QM?
 The mathematics of the uncertainty of energy-time pair is not
well defined as standard deviation of time does not make
sense.
Furthermore, if a certain duration of time is necessary for the
accurate measurement of some quantity such as energy, then we
should consider the same requirement for momentum too. It should
be noted that the dimension of energy is ML2 T-2 and for momentum
MLT-1. In fact, Heisenberg thought that “The measurement of the
energy of a free electron is identical with the measurement of its
velocity”25 with dimension of LT-1. However, in contrast to the
measurement of energy, the measurements of momentum of any
particle can be taken with an arbitrary accuracy irrespective of the
duration of the measurement.
If momentum should be treated like energy, then it is better to
separate Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle from the inevitable
measurement inaccuracy of some physical quantities within short
interval, which is well understood in science26. They seem to be
25 The physical principles of the quantum theory, Werner Heisenberg, Dover
Publications, Inc. 1949.
26 In fact, the uncertainty in measurement has been practically used for measuring
very small periods of time of the order of 10–22 seconds, which is not possible by
other means.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
23
completely different issues, which mistakenly are kept under the
same title.
Based on the above facts, uncertainty principle for time and
energy also is not well understood at best and, unfortunately for
science, the playground for pseudoscientific interpretations and
imaginations. Nonetheless, here we assume, for the sake of
argument, that time-energy is in par with position-momentum. That
is, we accept that spontaneous measurement of the energy of a
system is not possible and we cannot accurately measure the energy
of a system in an arbitrary short time interval. The uncertainty
equation in this case is:
ΔE Δt ≥ℏ/2 (2)
But again, we should repeat that the uncertainty principle is not
about the actual quantity of energy of the system but, according to
Equation 2, our inability to measure it in an arbitrary short time
interval. So, from where the idea of spontaneous creation of energy
and virtual particles from vacuum has come from? The answer is the
almost playful treatment of Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Our
inability of simultaneously knowing all exact quantities of a particle
has been extended to actual uncertainty and the creation of energy
and virtual particles, even in empty space, or absolute vacuum,
which is the bases for creation from nothing.
Griffiths states that:
“the uncertainty principle is extraordinarily robust: It can be
misused without leading to seriously incorrect results, and as a
consequence, physicists are in the habit of applying it rather
carelessly.”

The Issue of Existence
24
Interestingly, the creation from nothing is based on the very
misuse which Griffiths forcefully rejected;
“It is often said that the uncertainty principle means that
energy is not strictly conserved in QM – that you are allowed
to borrow energy ΔE, as long as you pay it back in a time Δt ≈
ℏ Ú2ΔE; the greater the violation, the briefer the period over
which it can occur. There are many legitimate readings of the
energy-time uncertainty principle, but this is not one of them.
Nowhere does QM license violation of energy conservation,
and certainly no such authorisation entered into the derivation
of ΔE Δt≥ℏ/2”27.
There is inconsistency with the concept too. An example of
inconsistent use of uncertainty principle is that in Feynman diagrams
a specific virtual particle, say W+ or Z boson, appears as a result of
a subatomic reaction. In this case the virtual particle has a cause and
is not produce from nothing. In other cases, any types of virtual
particles and energy can appear randomly and without any cause, in
abundance, supposedly even in empty space, none of which are
observable and measurable in practice thus beyond experimental
validation.
For real particles, pare production can only happen when high-
density photon-gas is present at very high temperature. Threshold
temperature for natural electron-positron pare production is 10
billion and for proton-antiproton 10 trillion Kelvin.28 Alternatively,
27 David J. Griffiths, Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. Prentice Hall, Inc. 1995,
P 115.
28 “To create an electron-positron pair, the total energy of the photons, in the rest
frame, must be at least 2mec2 = 2×0.511 MeV = 1.022 MeV (me is the mass of one
electron and c is the speed of light in vacuum), an energy value that corresponds
to soft gamma ray photons. The creation of a much more massive pair, like a
proton and antiproton, requires photons with energy of more than 1.88 GeV (hard
gamma ray photons).” Wikipedia

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
25
in order to produce, say, antiprotons, beams29 of protons have to be
smashed into a metal rod such as iridium at close to the speed of
light. This method of production has been possible in particle
accelerators such as Fermilab which can accelerate protons to about
120 GeV of energy. CERN is capable to accelerated the particle
much higher to about 6.5 TeV or more30. The production of
antiproton by this method is quite low. For example, total antiproton
production from Fermilab for 25 years can only boil about one litre
of water when they are paired with same amount of proton to
annihilate each other and release their energy.31
Based on the above sample facts, conversion of energy to a
matter-antimatter pair in absolute vacuum is speculative at best.
There should be always something, in matter or energy form, and in
special or extreme conditions for pair production to materialize.
Moreover, have these particles been observed in fitting places?
For example, have scientists ever noticed the creation of energy and
pair particles from nothing in the Large Electron–Positron Collider,
Large Hadron Collider at CERN, Tevatron at Fermilab or other
particle accelerators since late 1930? The answer is no. In fact, no
report of observing such particles by highly sensitive sensors used in
all accelerators has been mentioned.
Moreover, according to one interpretation of uncertainty
principle, abundant charged and uncharged virtual particles should
continuously whiz inside the storage rings of all particle accelerators.
Scientists and engineers make sure that they maintain ultra-high
vacuum at close to absolute zero temperature, in the travelling path
of the accelerating particles otherwise even residual gas molecules
deflect, attach to, or ionize any particle they encounter but there has
29 Beam of proton consists of about 2800 bunches. A bunch contains about 115
billion protons.
30 For particle-particle collision the total energy doubles at the collision point, i.e.,
13 TeV. This energy is planned to be increased to 7 TeV from 2021.
31 What is Antimatter? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=en2S1tBl1_s

The Issue of Existence
26
not been any concern or any report of undesirable collisions with so
called virtual particles in any accelerator.
It would have been absolutely useless to create ultrahigh vacuum,
pressure of about 10-14 bar, throughout the travel path of the particles
if vacuum chambers were seething with particle/antiparticle or
matter/antimatter. If there was such a phenomenon there would have
been significant background effects as a result of the collision and
scattering of the beam of accelerating particles from the supposed
bubbling of virtual particles created in vacuum. This process is
readily available for examination in comparison to totally out of
reach Hawking’s radiation which is considered to be a real
phenomenon that will be eating away supposed black holes of the
universe in a very long future.
After these brief background analyses, we now assess the main
idea of creation from nothing.
Zero Net Energy
In 1973 Edward Tryon proposed that if the universe was created
by fluctuation of the vacuum, or from nothing, its net energy must
be zero32. He suggested that the mass energy, positive energy, of our
universe should be cancelled out by equivalent negative energy. In
that case “our universe could have appeared from nowhere without
violating any conservation laws.”
The mass energy of any piece of matter is calculated by Einstein’s
well-known formula
𝐸 = 𝑚 𝑐 (3)
32 This idea is in contrast to the vacuum fluctuation which holds that the net energy
of zero-point energy is positive. The theoretical value was also calculated to be
extremely large when Tryon proposed his idea.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
27
where m is the mass of the piece of matter and c is the speed of
light in vacuum. To cancel out this energy, Tryon suggested gravity,
gravitational potential energy, as the fitting candidate just because it
can be considered as a negative energy.
He argued that the gravitational energy of any quantity of mass,
m, owing to its interaction with the rest of the mass of the whole
universe is governed by the following equation
𝐸≈ −𝐺𝑚𝑀/𝑅 (4)
In this equation G is the Newton’s universal gravitational constant
(6.67408 × 10-11 m3 kg-1 s-2), M is the mass of the universe and R is
the radius of the universe. Tryon, meanwhile, proposed to limit the
mass and radius of the world within Hubble radius. Finally,
assuming a closed universe he calculated and concluded that the
negative gravitational energy of the interaction is
𝐸≈ − 
𝑚 𝑐 (5)
This is not the exact and desired value he was hoping to find but
half of the amount, which he still found very promising.
Tryon’s paper has since been the heart and soul of the idea for the
creation of the universe from vacuum fluctuation or nothing33. In
fact, it is claimed that the journal Nature has accepted to print it as a
“Feature Article” and not as a “Letter to the Editor” which the author
was originally aimed for34. Subsequently, the idea has been
promoted as a cornerstone of inflation cosmology with one major
difference. The one-half in equation 5 is overlooked or quietly
33 Linde A.D., Nonsingular Regenerating Inflationary Universe, July 1982, and
Guth, Alan H., Inflation and the New Era of High Precision Cosmology, MIT
Physics Annual, 2002, pp. 28-39.
34 Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of
Cosmic Origins. Addison Wesley, 1997, P 271.

The Issue of Existence
28
removed by some cosmologists who tried their best to jump on the
bandwagon of this new idea.35 Following two quotes are given as
examples.
“which indicates that the gravitational energy associated
with the scale factor a is negative. (This is related to the
well-known fact that the total energy of a closed
Universe is zero, being a sum of the positive energy of
matter and the negative energy of the scale factor a.)”36
and
“It turns out a very similar argument, … tells us that the
total positive energy, including that associated with the
rest masses of particles, must be exactly compensated for
by a negative gravitational energy, so that the total
energy is precisely zero.”37
Besides this obvious sleight of hand, so many wrong assumptions
have been made in this theory just to make the result for negative
energy resemble the resting energy of mass. For example, only
gravitational energy is considered in this analysis merely to obtain a
desired formula. All other types of energies, such as thermal,
electromagnetic and kinetic energies have been neglected to
oblivion.
There has been, however, a criticism regarding the probability of
such a sizeable universe appearing due to vacuum fluctuation:
35 Alex Vilenkin, Before the Big Bang 9: A Multiverse from "Nothing",
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CChnwOsg9I about 0:4:10
36 Linde, Andrei; Linde, Dmitri; Mezhlumian, Arthur; From the Big Bang Theory
to the Theory of a Stationary Universe; Department of Physics, Stanford
University, Stanford CA 94305, USA, 2006.
37 Krauss, Lawrence; A Universe from Nothing: Why There is Something Rather
than Nothing; Free Press; January 10, 2012

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
29
“A weak point of Tryon's paper was its failure to explain why
the universe had become so large. While the scale of vacuum
fluctuations is typically subatomic”38
but fortunately
“While Tryon had fretted over the implausibility of a quantum
fluctuation of cosmic proportions, Vilenkin was able to invoke
inflation to enlarge the universe to its current size.”39.
Here the champion of the theory of inflation cosmology seals the
only fault he can find in Tryon’s theory by nothing else but inflation
theory. Inflationary cosmologists meanwhile failed to highlight any
other shortfalls of the theory.
Let us examine Tryon argument in more details:
1. The universe turned out not to be a closed one as Tryon
assumed. It is considered to be flat40 by scientists now.
Therefore, Tryon’s assumption for his calculation was false. The
supposed “stronger” but vague argument based on a closed
universe, narrated in the same article from P. Bergmann, also
fails.41
2. The issue of zero energy is not well clarified. In fact, it is kept
as ambiguous as possible.
As the title of the article suggests it is assumed that the cause of
creation is vacuum fluctuation. According to the extended
38 Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of
Cosmic Origins. Addison Wesley, 1997, P 13.
39 Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of
Cosmic Origins. Addison Wesley, 1997, P 275.
40 Strangely, all three cases (flat, closed and open universe) are proposed, even
with different meanings, as a necessary assumption for the theory of universe from
nothing by different theoretical cosmologists. Alexander Vilenkin assumed the
universe is open. See Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a
New Theory of Cosmic Origins. Addison Wesley, 1997, P 249.
41 Tryon, Edward P. Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation? Nature 246, 396 - 397
(14 December 1973); doi:10.1038/246396a0

The Issue of Existence
30
uncertainty principle, virtual energy can pop up in empty space
but must quickly vanish. This non-zero energy, meanwhile, may
produce a pair of virtual matter-antimatter, in equal amount, that
quickly annihilate each other, to reproduce the initial virtual
energy which then vanishes back to nothing before the time limit
imposed by uncertainty principle is over.
But, without any further explanation, Tryon quietly swapped the
matter-antimatter pair production with matter-gravity pair. It
means that he proposed a completely different theory which is
definitely not the case when matter-antimatter is momentary
created due to uncertainty principle. Now, similar to matter and
antimatter pair, apparently equal amount of positive (mass) and
negative (gravitation) energies can pop up alongside each other,
still under the banner of vacuum fluctuation. The difference is
that in the former case certain amount of energy precedes the
virtual matter-antimatter pair but in the latter case matter and
negative energy (mass-gravity pair) are created concurrently.
Hence, there is no antimatter creation in this new theory. As the
total energy of the new pair is claimed, not proven, to be always
zero any amount of matter can be created, anywhere and
anytime, without violating any physical law.
Some theoretical cosmologists such as Alexander Vilenkin have
noticed this weakness in Tryon’s argument. To fix this shortfall,
Vilenkin proposed the idea of quantum tunnelling for the
creation out of nothing.42 Later Alan Guth copied Tryon’s
creation idea under the banner of cosmic inflation, which can be
considered as the second stage of the big bang, embellished by
a special condition, namely false vacuum, for its inception43.
3. We know that gravitational potential energy can be converted to
other types of energies such as thermal, mechanical, electrical,
42 Creation of Universes from Nothing, Alexander Vilenkin, Phys. Lett. B 117
(1982) 25-28.
43 See Appendix A

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
31
chemical and kinetic energies. The reverse conversion is also
routinely possible. That is why all types of energies have the
same physical unit. If gravitational potential energy can be
converted to other types of energy it means they all are different
representatives of energy and there is no real positivity or
negativity associated with any type of them.
Assigning negative or positive sign to energy stems from human
convention as it becomes convenient or necessary for
mathematical manipulation. In the case of gravity:
“Due to the fact that the force of gravity is downward, it
would only seem logical to define downward as a positive
direction in gravity equations. This is essentially inverting
the Cartesian coordinate system.”44
This convention is similar to a common practice in
thermodynamics where one assigns positive or negative signs to
any kind of energy that enters or leaves a closed system,
respectively.
4. No experiment has ever been done to create or eliminate any
amount of matter with gravitational potential energy. No
scientist has ever demonstrated the creation or annihilation of
matter-gravity pair.
5. We are told that in the process of the big bang massive amount
of matter and antimatter were created by some condensed initial
energy which in the small space of the early universe could
easily find each other to get exterminated in the certain lethal
encounter. Somehow a tiny amount of matter, about one part in
billion45, was rescued from that mass destruction which formed
the very material of our universe. What happened to the
44 https://www.school-for-
champions.com/science/gravity_direction_convention.htm#.X2F4w4t7lEY
45 Tara Shears - Antimatter: Why the anti-world matters - YouTube

The Issue of Existence
32
equivalent antimatter, or why there was some matter antimatter
imbalance, is still not fully explained and is not related to this
issue. What is important is that the initial energy to produce
matter and antimatter, even if very tiny, cannot be equal to zero.
If the reverse process, as expected according to uncertainty
principle, did not happen does not make the initial energy to be
equated to zero.
Therefore, based on vacuum fluctuation theory the amount of
energy created out of nothing somehow became very huge, the
universe size of huge. It was supposed to disappear very quickly
based again on vacuum fluctuation theory but somehow
survived. It means, the theory is rebuffed twice to create some
lasting energy necessary for the creation of our universe. Then
in contrast to the idea of vacuum fluctuation Tryon still tried to
prove the total initial energy was in fact zero!
6. We are told that gravity did not exist in the beginning. Gravity
split off at the Planck time, 10-43 second after the big bang. So,
there was no gravity at the beginning to balance any positive
energy. This issue was also not analysed in the article.
7. Some particles such as photons neither have rest mass nor
potential energy. One should note that photons energy was more
than matter energy in the first 400,000 years of the universe.
Kinetic energy of the photon is calculated by Einstein's
photoelectric effect formula E = h f and not by 𝐸 = 𝑀 𝑐. This
dominant positive kinetic energy is not considered in the
calculation.
8. Tryon also assumes that every piece of mass in the universe is
stationary. He thus ignores kinetic energy altogether, which can
be very high for masses moving at very high speed. He only
singles out potential energy simply because it can be associated
with negative energy.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
33
9. If we even accept Tryon’s assumptions and proposal, his
derivation is burdened with further gross scientific
misjudgements. For example, formula 4 is the gravitation
potential energy of any mass around the edge of Hubble radius.
That is, the mass with the above proposed negative gravitational
energy only exists at the edge of the universe not within it. In
other words, Tryon founded his theory on an imaginary
stationary matter outside of the universe just to derive a desired
formula. Any other matter/mass of the universe within Hubble
radius has less gravitational energy which approaches to zero
for any mass in the centre of the Hubble radius.
As a matter of fact, this is a very complicated issue and no one
knows the edges of our universe. For example, “the radius of the
observable universe is about 46 billion light-years” 46. With this
accepted radius the considerable amount of matter can be
considered in the centre of a sphere with Hubble radius. Those
matters have the gravitational energy of almost zero and not
−
𝑚𝑐 as calculated by Tryon.
10. In equation 4 the mass of universe, M, is considered as
constants. Either from some point the mass of the universe
stopped increasing while it was still expanding or similar to
scientifically discarded steady state model, matter is still created
to balance the expansion.
11. The proposed gravitational energy reduces with an expanding
universe. That is, even if we accept the equation as the correct
representation of the gravitational energy of every mass in the
universe, the formula tells us that when the radius of the
universe was, say, about one metre long the gravitational energy
46 Wikipedia. Also If the universe is only 14 billion years old, how can it be 92
billion light years wide? - YouTube
“Hubble radius gives the distance from the observer at which the recession velocity
of a galaxy would equal the speed of light. Current observations give a Hubble radius
of 13.7 billion light-years”, Wikipedia. Also see
https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095948562

The Issue of Existence
34
was 𝐸≈ −𝐺𝑚𝑀. When the radius was increased to 100 metre
the gravitational energy reduced to 𝐸≈ −𝐺𝑚𝑀/100. This is
one hundred folds lower and has continued reducing as the
radius of the universe has been increasing ever after. In that case
the expansion of universe has been continuously reducing the
gravitational energy without it having any effect on the amount
of matter in universe. Does not it mean that the net energy of the
universe is not zero anymore? Also, decreasing negative energy
is in contrast to Tryon’s idea of it being the counter balance for
creation of mass in the universe. Tryon was right if mass
increases when radius of the universe decreases.
12. Supposing G stays constant, Equation 4 tells us that during the
expansion of the universe M should have increased with the
same rate as radius did if the total energy has to stay at zero. No
scientist, however, has proposed or demonstrated that the total
mass of the universe has changed after an initial expansion of
the universe but during or before the short period of inflation.47
13. Finally, Tryon’s idea was based on the mass and energy of the
universe when mysterious dark matter and dark energy were
unknown to scientists. The theory thus relies on only about 5%
of total energy and matter in the universe in comparison to what
scientists have later discovered. Nevertheless, the zero-energy
universe is still considered not only to be correct but also more
precise, without any further analysis, by scientists after the
discovery of dark matter, announced in 1975, and dark energy,
published in 1998. The theory which was conceived when the
total mass and energy of the universe was assumed to be
accounted for is also assumed valid when about 19 times more
enigmatic matter and energy has been identified to exist. No one
47 One more unproven piece of science some scientists are claiming is that during
the inflation period it was the space which was enlarge with the superluminal speed
not the matter. It seems they believe that matter is somehow pinned or glued to
space and when the space itself expands the matter expands with it.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
35
has thought to recalculate the assumed negative and positive
energy balance in the universe.
Unfortunately, all the above mistakes and unscientific premises
are ignored and the idea is gradually accepted as the cornerstone of
modern cosmology. How can we accept that “our universe is simply
one of those things which happen from time to time” as a scientific
statement? Who has observed a few of these time-to-time
happenings which makes Tryon to pass such a bold judgement and a
scientific journal to publish it? Unfortunately, this is the kind of
science that some theoretical scientists are producing and hope that
their initially ridiculed ideas get eventually the seal of approval and
popularity. In majority of cases, the blame falls on metaphysical
certainty which renders scientific integrity irrelevant. The intention
might be noble but scientific principle also needs to be included and
respected in the process.
To complete this discussion a parallel idea should be considered
as well. P.I. Fomin proposed a similar argument as Tryon a short
while earlier than him. Fomin first argues that for a sufficiently large
mass M we need the total energy to be zero. Here is his argument:
“the created bimatter (particles and antiparticles) falls into its
own gravitational potential well and, in the case of
sufficiently large proper mass M of bimatter (which is the
mass without the account of the gravitational binding
energy), this well can be sufficiently deep so that the
gravitational binding energy U(M) totally compensates for
the energy Mc2.48
48 P.I. Fomin, Gravitational Instability of Vacuum and The Cosmological Problem,
1973, Preprint ITP-73-137P.

The Issue of Existence
36
Total energy consists of only positive mass energy and negative
gravitational energy. That is:
𝐸+ 𝑀 𝑐= 0
The negative gravitational energy is calculated to be
𝐸= −𝜂𝐺𝑀𝑎
where η is a dimensionless coefficient with the value of 3/5 for a
sphere, G is the Newtonian gravitational constant and a is the radius
of the universe. From the above two equations it is concluded that
the mass is either 𝑀 = 0 or 𝑀 = 
 .
Fomin consequently commented that the first case is linked to the
vacuum state and the second case to our universe. As both cases have
zero total energy, transition from vacuum fluctuation state to our
universe is not only possible but thermodynamically favourable. The
average mass density increases from zero to some maximum value
similar to entropy and temperature which increased from zero to
some high values.
The additional criticism to Fomin’s argument is that he had
already concluded that in the beginning of the universe only two
types of energy existed which added up to zero before even
measuring or calculating any of them in the universe at any instance.
To have this specific case the radius and subsequently mass of the
universe must have precise high quantities to permit for the quantum
transition from vacuum fluctuation to the real universe to happen.
The way Fomin argues the case implies that only one case among
countless possibilities suits the theory. A universe can only pop up
to existence only if precise amount of mass erupts. Mass does not
gradually increase with negative energy of gravity as it is the case in
universe according to Tryon. Other less precise candidates are

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
37
probably sent back to a colossal hidden junkyard, though the theory
prefers not to mention the fate of those cases as it is the usual trend
in this type of science.
Something hypothesis
What is “something” in the second option? Unfortunately, the
proposed something is currently not agreed on and is wide-ranging.
The nature of something mainly depends on individual scientist’s
background, expertise and fashionable ideas flailing around.
In our time, a scientist working on string theory, most probably
proposes “that something” to be not one, but two flat, though slightly
wavy, parallel sheets or so-called branes. The two branes are
proposed to be infinitely large sheets and at the same time
infinitesimally thin.
The process for the creation of a universe like ours has also been
worked out. It is just random touching or collision between these two
thin sheets due to their wavy movement nature. This cyclic rebirth
and death of the universe is dubbed as Ekpyrotic model or the big
splat.
If it is asked from where those two infinitely stretched branes
came from, the answer, which unfortunately we all like to adhere or
seek refuge to, is that they themselves are parts of a cyclical creation
process that were going on in the past and will be repeated again and
again in future, creating new universes. In other words, it is “turtles
all the way down”. We all know the story but let us read it again to
see the similarity of the ideas.
When the Professor (P) … was trying to explain that the earth
revolved around the sun, an elderly lady (EL) stood up and
interrupted his talk.

The Issue of Existence
38
EL: No! no! the earth does not move, we know it is a flat plate
rested on the back of a giant turtle.
P: What is the turtle standing on?
EL: Obviously on the back of another turtle.
P: What does the second turtle rest on?
EL: You are very clever, young man, very clever. But it is turtle
all the way down49
If we also ask how they know that the creation of our universe is
anything to do with the collision of the two branes, the quality of the
answer is in par with the first account. This creation story, in essence,
is not dissimilar from any past tribal ones at all. Let us read a typical
answer given by Professor Burt Ovrut one of the leading scientists
proposing the idea50.
“I was a teenager, ... One of the great ocean liners at the
time was the Michelangelo, …, and the entire superstructure
in the front of the ship, the entire bow had been just crushed
by a wave which had blown out all of the windows in the
forward bulkhead right up to the bridge. This is one of what
they call a white wave, or a rogue wave which had hit the
Michelangelo and done all this damage. What's interesting is
that there are waves somewhat similar to this which inhabit the
higher dimensions and then you can imagine if you had this
huge rogue wave moving through the higher dimension if it
slams into another wave you're going to have a tremendous
cataclysmic collision.
49 The turtle argument is apparently based on wrong conclusion from an inductive
reasoning. In the past it was assumed that all objects need to be directly supported
by another object to stop them falling down. A person is supported by a chair; the
chair is supported by the floor; floors are supported by earth. Therefore, earth must
be supported by something. So, we need turtles all the way down.
50 BBC Horizon programme, Parallel Universe, broadcasted in Feb. 2002

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
39
(Horizon) Narrator: Waves had long fascinated Burt Ovrut.
Now they were just about to turn M-Theory upside down. At
the beginning of 2001 the received wisdom was that the
eleventh dimension was a tranquil place with membrane
universes gently floating in it, but Burt suggested a much more
exciting idea. Universes moving through the eleventh
dimension like giant, turbulent waves.
Burt Ovrut: These things can move. They are not static,
they're, you know, like everything else in the world they can
move around and there's not much room for them to move in.
In fact, if they move they're very likely to bang into each other.
In fact, they either move away from each other, or they bang
into each other, and one thing that had occurred to me very
early on is what happens if they collide?”
These types of prophetic oracles under the banner of science are
not few and far between. It seems to be the bread and butter of new
trend in theoretical physics and astrophysics. For example,
Conformal Cyclic Cosmology or CCC, proposed by theoretical
physicist Sir Roger Penrose, tries to imitate the same cyclic pattern
as shown in Figure 3.

The Issue of Existence
40
Figure 3 - Aeons of conformal cyclic cosmology (CCC) 51
The proponents of the theory also tried to find evidence from
cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation52 but it was hard to
convince their opponents who likewise are trying to find the minute
unevenness in the radiation in support for their own ideas; for
example:
51 Roger Penrose, On the Gravitization of Quantum Mechanics 2: Conformal
Cyclic Cosmology, Found Phys (2014) 44:873–890, DOI 10.1007/s10701-013-
9763-z
52 https://arxiv.org/abs/1011.3706

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
41
 Ekpyrotic model53 was found to be in agreement with CMB
data with high precision54.
 The data was found to accurately fit a prediction by inflation
cosmology55.
 The proponents of holographic model of the universe claim
that “the holographic models provide a (marginally) better fit
to the data” 56.
 Mersini-Houghton suggested that other patterns in CMB are
indications for the existence of other hidden universes. This
idea renders any other interpretation useless if it is accepted
that the pattern has been continuously contaminated by other
past and present sources.
These sample examples show that, unfortunately, CMB has
sometimes been utilized as nothing but cloud divination/reading
for proving any idea. Scientists need to clean their acts with this
type of cloud reading exercise not only from CBM but other
sources of sky data.
The idea of cosmological natural selection being pushed by Lee
Smolin also follows the same route as CCC. It proposes a Darwinian
Natural Selection model for cosmos which readily provides a
cyclical rebirth and death process. The fecund object in this case is a
collapsing black hole which produces a mutated offspring, as a new
universe with slightly different laws and constants, as a result!
The endless cycle of death and rebirth of the universe under the
general theory of the big bounce hypothesis, also follow the same
53 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239
54 https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0302150
55 Guth, Alan H., The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of
Cosmic Origins. Addison Wesley, 1997.
56 N. Afshordi, et al., From Planck Data to Planck Era: Observational Tests of
Holographic Cosmology, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 041301, 2017.
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1607.04878

The Issue of Existence
42
logic as the turtle-supported-universe without addressing the issue of
existence.
What is interesting about these motley ideas is that they shy away
from the origin question and instead try to find an answer for the
commotion and evolution of the world. Not being possible to
scientifically investigate any of these theories these scientists
compete in a crowded market full of other imaginative ideas in
different shapes and forms. One might then ask; which one of these
is based on science? What are the rest of them based on?
Why are these simple mistakes keep creeping into scientific
discipline and thinking, and are accepted as a scientific solution to
the issue of existence? In other words, why do scientists
inadvertently repeat the mistakes of not only past philosophers,
especially those with keen interest in metaphysics but also an
anecdotal elderly lady?
Conclusion
This article highlights the problem of mixing metaphysics with
science in the subject of existence or the genesis of the universe.
Theoretical physicists have tried to explain the phenomenon of
existence by introducing several concurrent metaphysical theories
disguised under the banner of science. Their theories can be
categorized as “nothing” and “something” models. Major shortfalls
of each category were pointed out. It was shown that the models have
failed to provide scientifically consistent ideas just by being
detached from the principle of science and try to mimic metaphysical
ideas and approaches.
It was also argued that singularity idea tries to add more
complications by confessing impasse only when the state of the
universe is in a specified condition, i.e., point-size universe. The
universe comes with its laws and constants, its layers after layers of

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
43
complexities and wonders, its evolution and creation and its
interminable labyrinth of surprises which so far are beyond
comprehension. By shifting everything back to just a single point,
singularity in fact suppresses all these phenomena and do away with
explanations of their existences.
As one of the popular foundations of modern nothing models,
Tryon’s hypothesis was investigated in detail. It was shown that the
model was based on several misjudgements and guesswork. Later
models and improvements have been proposed without addressing
those inaccuracies and metaphysical speculations in the Tryon’s
paper.
Almost all something ideas are based on various cyclic models.
By being the anecdotal turtle-all-the-way-down those models avoid
the question of existence altogether.
With countless essential shortfalls in various models, the current
answer to existence should be “we just don’t know yet” as initially
admitted by Sir Roger Penrose and late Stephen Hawkins and before
them Bertrand Russel. Science needs to adhere to scientific
principles and to be cleaned up from metaphysical practices. The
way forward is experiment based science and certainly not retreating
to dubious metaphysics.

The Issue of Existence
44
Appendix A
Inflation Theory
Inflation theory was proposed not as a theory for the genesis of
the universe but a hypothesis for explaining the extraordinary way
the universe was evolved to the one, we observe today. Alan Guth,
one of the pioneers of the theory describe it as “a wildfire that will
inevitably take over the forest, as long as there is some chance that
it will start”57 or in less dramatic way the story goes as “small patch
of the early Universe somehow came to be in a false vacuum state”58.
He meanwhile makes it clear that in the big bang theory “we do not
know what banged, why it banged and what happened before it
banged”.
Therefore, there are two major issues with inflation cosmology.
It is generally accepted that no one knows the condition before the
inflation and thus no specific condition and assumption are valid to
start a scientific investigation. Any assumption is either revelational
or metaphysical. Inflation cosmology also relies on at least three
miracles to fix some of the puzzles in the big bang theory. They can
be briefly described as:
 It is assumed that there appeared a state of false vacuum about
13.8 billion years ago. One feature of this vacuum state is that
energy density does not reduce with expanding, in contrast to
normal science. That is, while expansion was going on more
energy was simultaneously created to maintain energy density
constant. The normal expanding of the universe apparently does
not cause any energy creation. For example, all galaxies beyond
57 Was Cosmic Inflation the ‘Bang’ of the Big Bang, Beamline: Fall 1997, Vol.
27, No. 3.
58 The Beamline, 27, 14,1997.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
45
the Hubble sphere – with radius of 4300 million parsec – are
moving away from the Earth at superluminal speed. According to
the physics of relativity no two objects can approach or move
away from each other at superluminal speed. Therefore, it is
argued that space itself is expanding at superluminal speed and
drag anything, including entire galaxies, within it apart and this is
not against any law of physics. Scientist, meanwhile, do not think
this expansion triggers the creation of any type of energy or
matter. Simply, its behaviour is not similar to false vacuum
expansion. Therefore, the latter phenomenon was unique not seen
or heard of ever since.
 The expansion speed is assumed to be considerably more than
1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the speed of light in
vacuum, c or 1024c. This superluminal speed is a mind-boggling
expansion beyond any experiment and observation.
 The universe was not dimensionally huge after inflation. In fact,
with the average speed of 1024c the size of universe at the end of
expansion was not bigger than a golf ball. It is claimed that no
matter or energy was added to the universe after the inflation
period. However, such a dense universe did not collapse under its
colossal gravity when atomic nuclei were formed a few minutes
after the big bang.
However, for completeness it is better to briefly represent the
theory as it was developed to rectify a few known shortfalls of the
original big bang theory. Inflation thus can be considered as a
progression that dictates and accomplishes the initial course of the
evolution of the universe.
There have been more than twenty different versions of the
theory. This abundance is partly due to the fact that the initial
assumptions and reasons for these proposed theories are not and
cannot be substantiated and its real preconditions are unknown.

The Issue of Existence
46
Also, as nobody has had a glimpse of what exactly happened at the
birth of the universe, the theory seems to be another exhaustive
creation story which no one has the ability to verify with such a
detail.
Here we consider the two leading versions. Their major
differences with standard Big Bang theory are:
1. With inflation, the universe can be initiated with a scientifically
justifiable smaller size, about 1025 or more times smaller in
comparison to standard big bang model as shown in Figure A1.
Figure A1
Alternatively, the present universe would have been about 1025 times
smaller in size if there was no inflation as schematically depicted in
Figure A2. Guth justifies both with this statement: “Note that I am
not saying that universe as a whole was very small. The inflationary

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
47
model makes no statement about the size of the universe as a whole,
which might in fact be infinite.”59
Figure A2
2. There existed a state of false vacuum (state of non-minimum
energy) which was exploited by inflation process to initiate a
rapid expansion of the universe.
3. The inflation started around 10-36 seconds or so after the big
bang, expanding the initially flat60, homogeneous61 and
59 The Beamline, 27, 14,1997.
60 The Euclidean geometry applies as the universe expands; long parallel lines
remain parallel
61 The universe is the same at all locations

The Issue of Existence
48
isotropic62 but very small universe, or a very small part of it, with
mesmerising velocity, much much greater than the speed of light.
The theory suggests that there was a possibility that the universe
doubled in size more than 100,000 times63, lasting for only about
10-34 seconds64. Due to this short inflation period, universe was
left at exactly the same flat, homogeneous and isentropic states
but in much larger scale.
4. A new method of creating matter out of nowhere. This is mainly
based on Tryon’s idea that total energy of the universe is zero.
Inflation theory not only accepted this idea but also confirmed
that energy and matter can be further created during inflation
period while being exactly offset by negative gravitational
energy resulting in total energy remaining zero. As pointed out
the latter method of matter creation is different from vacuum
fluctuation process.
According to one scenario the universe was created from singularity
and then at some point somehow there appeared some false vacuum
which initiated inflation process. After the fleeting inflation, creation
of matter also ended and a brief heating process followed, taking the
universe into the dark ages preceded by cosmic microwave
background radiation.
62 The universe is the same in all directions
63 2100,000 up to 21,000,000 times
64 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZdvSJyHvUU for latest/different time
stamps.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
49
Figure A3 – Singularity-Inflation Cosmology
If vacuum fluctuation rather than singularity is accepted, the
creation process is slightly different. As it was mentioned, there is
no justifiable process between the vacuum fluctuation and the state
of the universe before the inflation phase.

The Issue of Existence
50
Figure A4 – Nothing-Inflation Cosmology
The cosmic inflation theory is thus a colossal expansion, second
or third phase of matter creation and supposedly appropriate
evolution of the universe in the beginning, to overcome the horizon
and flatness problems, rather than being the explanation of its
original existence. The experimental validation of the theory was the
agreement of inflation models with cosmic microwave background
(CMB) power spectrum65. It has also been claimed that inflation
predicted “space to be mostly flat”66, whereas this characteristic was
observed to exist before the theory was introduced. That is why one
of the main objectives of the theory was to explain the flatness of the
65 The agreement between the data and inflation prediction is in doubt now. See:
Pop goes the universe, A Ijjas, P Steinhardt and A Loeb, Scientific American,
January 2017. Also, the theory has lost its popularity among physicist. For
example, see: Is the Inflationary Universe A Scientific Theory? Not Anymore,
Sabine Hossenfelder, Forbes, 2017
66 A. Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientific American,
Nov. 1994

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
51
universe. Simply, the then current perceived condition of the
universe was introduced as a prediction of the theory.
The theory had initially nothing to present as science fact. As the
initial conditions before the supposed inflation was not known,
physicists could imagine a set of conditions which they then claimed
could be solved by inflation theory with no scientific back up. For
example, a discussion of the flat universe is only adorned by
sketching a graph similar to Figure A567. According to the Figure,
the universe could be flat too in the standard big bang model.
Nevertheless, the proponent of the theory claimed that it was
inflation which fixed the flatness issue, nothing that the universe
could be any big size before the supposed inflation phase.
Figure A5 – Open, Flat and Closed universe
Besides the above graphs other supporting evidences which
initially produced by Alan Guth were two more schematics. One was
the supposed illustration of false vacuum in comparison to real
67 See; A. Linde, The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe, Scientific
American, Nov. 1994

The Issue of Existence
52
vacuum as shown in Figure A6. The second was a drawing of a
cylinder and piston representing a chamber or closed system (Figure
A7). The illustration was produced merely to point out that the false
vacuum does not follow what we expect to happen according to the
science of thermodynamics. Apparently, as it has been claimed,
energy density of false vacuum within the chamber does not decrease
if the piston is pulled to the right resulting in a chamber with a larger
volume.
Figure A6 – Evidence for False Vacuum!?

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
53
Figure A7 – Evidence for energy density conservation with
larger volume?!
Most probably, this idea is borrowed from Steady State theory68
which is another “something out of nothing” theory. Steady state
idea was eventually abandoned and replaced by the big bang
cosmology. However, as a final effort the proponents of the steady
state theory introduced their revised theory as Quasi-Steady State
theory. The creation process was proposed as follows:
Creation occurs when certain conservation equations
involving the gradient of a scalar field, Ci, are satisfied. C-
field bosons falling into the strong gravitational field of a
68 There have also been other matter creation proposals which are generally
based on Einstein’s field equation. It claims that (negative) stress and mass are
mutually convertible into one another. See for example G. C. McVittie, A model
universe admitting the interchangeability of stress and mass, 21 Feb. 1952
https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1952.0041

The Issue of Existence
54
local body come to satisfy this conservation requirement
provided that the field is strong enough, as it must be,
should the body approach an event horizon sufficiently
closely. The resulting establishment of a strong negative
pressure, tending to infinity as the event horizon is
approached, acts to halt implosion, converting the
implosion of a local body into explosion, or leading to a
steady outpouring of matter should an event horizon be
approached secularly, as in the case of a rotating object.69
Based on these facts one can conclude that inflation theory is just
another example of some scientists trying to figure out the reality by
proposing a theory with no direct observation or experiment but
passing false ideas to each other. The theory is only backed up by
some fancy words, hollow mathematics and meaningless graphs.
The problem with the theory compounded by some top scientist
trying to prove the theory and then announcing that they have in fact
found the evidence of cosmic inflation70. It turned out that in their
eagerness to confirm the theory they did not check their careless
results properly and announce success without proper peer review.
The theory of cosmic inflation can further be criticised as follows:
1. If “we do not know what banged … and what happened before
it banged” and we do not know the physical size of the universe
before the proposed cosmic inflation why do we think universe
was not flat, homogeneous and isotropic before the supposed
inflation?
2. From which experiment we have identified the characteristic of
the false vacuum and the outcome of its transition to the real
vacuum?
69 F. Hoyle, G. Burbidge, J. V. Narlikar; A quasi-steady state cosmological model
with creation of matter. The Astrophysical Journal, 1993, 410, 437–457.
70 BICEP2 Press Conference - March 17, 2014 - YouTube, March 17, 2014.

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
55
3. How can we justify super luminal expansion71 in contradiction
to other established theories in physics?
4. Why does the theory insist that cosmic inflation started around
10-36 seconds after the big bang if we only know that “small
patch of the early universe somehow came to be in a false
vacuum state” and “we do not know what banged, why it banged
and what happened before it banged”? Why we think we know
everything afterwards, e.g., between the big bang and the
cosmic inflation?
5. What was the reason that when the universe was about say
0.0001μg, 100g, 1kg or a half of the mass of our existing
universe its mass kept increasing and it stopped when it
stopped? What was the stopping mechanism?
6. We know some other attributes of the universe such as its
entropy during its assumed genesis and other instances, say
380,000 years later, is not touched. Why do we think we must
focus on and fix, say, the flatness of our universe by crafting a
few miraculous phenomena but not its entropy?
Cosmic inflation, which is simply a just-so story, may rhyme with
some features of our universe today but should not be allowed as a
scientific subject if it is not supported by scientific observation or
experiments. Like Tryon’s idea these types of theories, that are not
even based on observational foundation, are creation stories of our
time and are similar to those found in various religions tomes or
folklores. Unfortunately, their stories have no more credential in
comparison to supposedly testified historic miracles. Hume’s
argument applies to both theories. We simply cannot rely on a
miraculous phenomenon which is claimed to have happened in the
past without any trace of evidence.
71 During the inflation phase, which lasted for only less than 10-30 seconds, the
universe expanded by a factor of 1025

The Issue of Existence
56
All said we are not trying to fully investigate the theory. What is
important here is that we want to clear that the inflation theory, if
correct, is only an explanation of what happened after “a few ounces
of primordial matter”72, “less than one milligram”73 or even “a
hundred billion times smaller than a proton”74 was already in
existence.75 The minuscule matter was also
 Compressed to a size billions of times smaller than an
electron76. This claim tries to somehow push the theory of
vacuum fluctuation over the edge as the latter theory allows
proton and antiproton pop up too. Thus, why trying to insist that
the universe was a hundred billion times smaller than an electron
if all subatomic particles can readily be produced in vacuum.
Apparently, inflation tries to be a panacea and solve the
monopole problem too. Their argument suggests that the
universe in fact grew from a minimum size possible particle, so
small that it contained nothing but one monopole.
 Happened to exist in a false vacuum which caused the process
of exponential expanding. False vacuum has one assumed
characteristic. It has repulsive, not attractive, gravity. If we have
not observed any new inflation, it means there has been no false
vacuum since immediately after the genesis of our universe. If
false vacuum has not been observed how one can figure out its
existence immediately after the birth of the universe? Why did
they give it the peculiar characteristic? Not having any answer to
the above questions means that the so-called false vacuum has
72 Guth, Alan H., Inflation and the New Era of High Precision Cosmology, MIT
Physics Annual, 2002, p 34.
73 Linde, Andrei; Universe, life, consciousness; Department of Physics, Stanford
University, Stanford CA 94305-4060, USA.
74 A. Guth Was Cosmic Inflation The 'Bang' Of The Big Bang?, "The Beamline" 27,
14, 1997. “In the inflationary theory the Universe begins incredibly small, perhaps
as small as 10-24 cm, a hundred billion times smaller than a proton.”
75 It seems that physicists just generate a random value for the size of the
universe before inflation.
76 Linde, Andrei; Universe, life, consciousness; Department of Physics, Stanford
University, Stanford CA 94305-4060, USA

Science in the Shadow of Metaphysics
57
been just imagined to be the cause of the proper evolution of our
universe. It is thus just another god created to fill the unknown
gap in big bang cosmology. Inflation thus is nothing but a bizarre
god-of-the-gaps argument.