Virtual particles require a quantum vacuum. What was the cause of the vacuum ?

Virtual particles require a quantum vacuum. What was the cause of the vacuum ?  

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1317-virtual-particles-require-a-quantum-vacuum-what-was-the-cause-of-the-vacuum

Atheism is perfectly at home with all kinds of idiocy, superstition, and irrational nonsense like “a universe from nothing”

1. It is claimed that virtual particles caused the Big bang, and the universe into existence. 
2. Virtual particles depend on a quantum vacuum, field, or bubble, which is an energy state in space. The energy in space is not nothing. 
3. In order to have a quantum vacuum and field, the laws of physics are still there. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. That's still a lot of something, and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demands an explanation.
4. The quantum vacuum and field require an explanation of its existence. The first cause argument of God's existence is not refuted by claiming that virtual particles caused the Big bang. 

Dongshan He, Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing 4 abril 2014
the universe can be created spontaneously from nothing. When a small true vacuum bubble is created by quantum fluctuations of the metastable false vacuum, it can expand exponentially 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1404.1207v1

Claim: Metastable quantum field. Energy potential in the absense of matter. Quantum fluctuation condenses it into virtual particles of matter and antimatter. They created the Big bang, and our universe. 
Reply: Virtual particles, and the quantum vacuum generating them, are far from absolutely nothing. 
This is what physicists mean when they talk about nothing:  Nothingness is the void of empty space. They mean however something different than "no things" at all. In order to achieve nothingness, one has to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed. Then there would be empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in the Universe, there would still be empty space itself. To some, that's the scientific definition of "nothingness." But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. 

Lets contrast it now with absolutely nothing, or the philosophical nothingness:  True Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness. The question is, of course: If the nothing that physicists like Krauss talk about, entails the existence of the laws of physics, the quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces,  spacetime, governed by General Relativity, the fundamental constants,  the zero-point energy of space, and still at its current, positive, non-zero value, which manifests itself as dark energy, then the question is: Where did ALL THIS come from ?? It's not, as many think, just virtual particles popping in and out from a quantum vacuum. Its much more. As seen that's still a lot of something, and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demands an explanation.


How does Krauss claim we get a universe from nothing? He writes:

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. (Krauss, 2012: 92)

This original empty space is highly structured, first by gravity. But gravity cannot be decoupled from energy. By E = mc2, energy can be transformed into matter. Then gravity can transform matter into the galaxies that provide the home for humans. If the original empty space is structured by the law of gravity that is essentially connected to energy, you’ve really got something there. Not nothing. In short, for Krauss, nothing is not really nothing. Krauss’s quantum vacuums are highly structured somethings. So the world does not come from nothing. The somethings it comes from—that bubbling soup of energy and mass or the laws of physics or gravity/energy—make one wonder. Where do they come from? Surely not from nothing (ex nihilo, nihil fit).

It is claimed that Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy. So they are in time, in space, and require a quantum vacuum, in the lowest state of energy. So we have to ask: What caused the energy, space, and time in which these particles pop up?

The net energy of the universe is zero
The attempt to draw metaphysical implications from the zero net energy hypothesis is a bad joke. It’s like saying that if your debts and your assets exactly cancel each other out, so that your net worth is zero, then there is no cause of your current financial condition. The suggestion that nothing exists is absurd. Not only do I undeniably exist, but according to the hypothesis, the positive and negative energy exist. So as Christopher Isham, Britain’s premier quantum cosmologist, points out, there still needs to be “ontic seeding” to create the positive and negative energy in the first place.

"Net energy is zero" is what is called a construct. It's like "the average family with 2.4 children". It's not an actual object you can point to, but something you get when you run the calculations for positive and negative elements. Do you know what you have when you have positive and negative elements? Elements. That's not nothing, that's something. Something that 1) doesn't have to exist and 2) logically cannot exist eternally. So we're back to the same question. If non-physical causation is a non-starter for you, either offer an explanation that's physical that doesn't suffer from those problems of offer an explanation as to why non-physical explanations are so repulsive.

Here, Krauss goes to the point to claim that ABSOLUTELY NOTHING could have created the universe. Thats the suicide of reason and logic
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghLSHorrcoQ

God most probably exists - The universe had a beginning, therefore a cause
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9UMDiiE0kY&t=327s

Nothing is the thing that stones think of
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2817-nothing-is-the-thing-that-stones-think-of

https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t1317-virtual-particles-require-a-quantum-vacuum-what-was-the-cause-of-the-vacuum


In quantum field theory, the quantum vacuum state is the quantum state with the lowest possible energy. The vacuum electromagnetic field in spontaneous emission, the Lamb shift, van der Waals, and Casimir forces, and a variety of other phenomena, some of which are of technological as well as purely scientific importance.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/book/9780080571492/the-quantum-vacuum

Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:

First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.

Physicist and philosopher David Albert

The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—

Lee Strobel, A case of a creator :
Quantum theory ... holds that a vacuum ... is subject to quantum uncertainties. This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum, although they tend to vanish back into it quickly... . Theoretically, anything-a dog, a house, a planet-can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk, which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles ... are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly.... The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely. Nevertheless, in 1973 an assistant professor at Columbia University named Edward Tryon suggested that the entire universe might have come into existence this way.... The whole universe may be, to use [MIT physicist Alan] Guth's phrase, "a free lunch."20 I closed the magazine and tossed it on Craig's desk. "Maybe Tryon was right when he said, `I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.' “ Craig was listening intently. "Okay, that's a good question," he replied. "These subatomic particles the article talks about are called `virtual particles.' They are theoretical entities, and it's not even clear that they actually exist as opposed to being merely theoretical constructs. "However, there's a much more important point to be made about this. You see, these particles, if they are real, do not come out of anything. The quantum vacuum is not what most people envision when they think of a vacuum-that is, absolutely nothing. On the contrary, it's a sea of fluctuating energy, an arena of violent activity that has a rich physical structure and can be described by physical laws. These particles are thought to originate by fluctuations of the energy in the vacuum. "So it's not an example of something coming into being out of nothing, or something coming into being without a cause. The quantum vacuum and the energy locked up in the vacuum are the cause of these particles. And then we have to ask, well, what is the origin of the whole quantum vacuum itself? Where does it come from?" He let that question linger before continuing. "You've simply pushed back the issue of creation. Now you've got to account for how this very active ocean of fluctuating energy came into being. Do you see what I'm saying? If quantum physical laws operate within the domain described by quantum physics, you can't legitimately use quantum physics to explain the origin of that domain itself. You need something transcendent that's beyond that domain in order to explain how the entire domain came into being. Suddenly, we're back to the origins question."

Krauss - a universe from nothing
https://reasonandscience.catsboard.com/t2594-krauss-a-universe-from-nothing

Krauss: Indeed, the immediate motivation for writing this book now is a profound discovery about the universe that has driven my own scientific research for most of the past three decades and that has resulted in the startling conclusion that most of the energy in the universe resides in some mysterious, now inexplicable form permeating all of empty space. It is not an understatement to say that this discovery has changed the playing field of modern cosmology. For one thing, this discovery has produced remarkable new support for the idea that our universe arose from precisely nothing.
Answer: If we define nothing as the absence of anything, then the assertion that the universe arose from precisely nothing is hogwash and pure irrational nonsense. Nothing is the absence of anything and has no properties, not potentiality, it can't change the state of nothingness. That's OBVIOUS to any average intelligent mind.

Krauss: And if inflation indeed is responsible for all the small fluctuations in the density of matter and radiation that would later result in the gravitational collapse of matter into galaxies and stars and planets and people, then it can be truly said that we all are here today because of quantum fluctuations in what is essentially nothing.
Answer: This is probably the essence or core assertion of the book, and essentialy makes as much sense as a quacking duck :=P .

http://www.bethinking.org/is-there-a-creator/a-universe-from-someone-against-lawrence-krauss

In the face of the logically coherent answer supported by the Leibnizian cosmological argument, Krauss would dearly like to change the topic: "what is really useful is not pondering this question…" As a result, he produces a book that’s overwhelmingly devoted to questions besides the one on the front cover. Krauss anti-philosophical prejudice leads him to embrace a verificationalist stance long ago abandoned by philosophers as self-contradictory and to toy with rejecting the ultimate question of origins as meaningless. Despite this, Krauss spends a handful of pages attempting to explain why there is something rather than nothing. The attempt leads him to beg the question against theism, to reject logic in the name of science and to embrace a double standard. This kludge of fallacies convinced Richard Dawkins to put his name to the incoherent assertion that "nothingness is unstable: something was almost bound to spring into existence from it"; which only goes to show just how intellectually unstable the foundations of neo-atheism are.

David Tong:  Particle Physics 
The existence of quantum fields means that empty space, also known as the vacuum, is not a dull place. It is filled with quantum fields which, even when left alone, are not necessarily calm. An example is shown in Figure 4, depicting a computer simulation of empty space. What’s shown is a typical configuration of the gluon field in the vacuum. The true vacuum is, in fact, much more complicated even than that shown in the picture. The vacuum doesn’t have just a single field configuration but is something more murky: a quantum superposition of infinitely many different field configurations, each appearing with some probability. In quantum field theory, the vacuum of space is an interesting place. It froths with quantum uncertainty. The take-home message for these lectures is that the vacuum of space is not some inert, boring substance. The bubbling fields breathe life into the vacuum and mean that it is able to respond to things happening within it. This phenomenon, as we shall see, lies at the heart of some of the more subtle effects of quantum fields.
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/tong/pp/pp.pdf





http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c039.html

Theories that the universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate their quantum vacuum is a lot of matter-antimatter potential not nothing.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-caused-beginning-of-the-universe-a-response-to-quentin-smith

Tom’s Top 10 interpretations of quantum mechanics
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/context/tom%E2%80%99s-top-10-interpretations-quantum-mechanics

http://creation.com/god-created-not-quantum-fluctuation

Luke Barnes, a non-creationist astrophysicist who is a Postdoctoral Researcher at the Sydney Institute for Astronomy, University of Sydney, Australia, is scathing about Krauss and those who argue like him:

First and foremost, I’m getting really rather sick of cosmologists talking about universes being created out of nothing. Krauss repeatedly talked about universes coming out of nothing, particles coming out of nothing, different types of nothing, nothing being unstable. This is nonsense. The word nothing is often used loosely—I have nothing in my hand, there’s nothing in the fridge etc. But the proper definition of nothing is “not anything”. Nothing is not a type of something, not a kind of thing. It is the absence of anything.

Physicist and philosopher David Albert

The fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings—if you look at them aright—amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.—

Astrophysicist Rocky Kolb, chairman of the Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago, wrote:
“[A] region of seemingly empty space is not really empty, but is a seething froth in which every sort of fundamental particle pops in and out of empty space before annihilating with its antiparticle and disappearing” (1998, 26[2]:43, emp. added).


Estling (1995, 19[1]:69-70, emp. added).
   Quantum cosmologists insist both on this absolute Nothingness and on endowing it with various qualities and characteristics: this particular Nothingness possesses virtual quanta seething in a false vacuum. Quanta, virtual or actual, false or true, are not Nothing, they are definitely Something, although we may argue over what exactly. For one thing, quanta are entities having energy, a vacuum has energy and moreover, extension, i.e., it is something into which other things, such as universes, can be put, i.e., we cannot have our absolute Nothingness and eat it too. If we have quanta and a vacuum as given, we in fact have a pre-existent state of existence that either pre-existed timelessly or brought itself into existence from absolute Nothingness (no quanta, no vacuum, no pre-existing initial conditions) at some precise moment in time; it creates this time, along with the space, matter, and energy, which we call the universe.... I’ve had correspondence with Paul Davies [eminent atheistic theoretical physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist of Arizona State University, who advocates the supposition that the Universe created itself from nothing—JM] on cosmological theory, in the course of which, I asked him what he meant by “Nothing.” He wrote back that he had asked Alexander Vilenkin what he meant by it and that Vilenkin had replied, “By Nothing I mean Nothing,” which seemed pretty straightforward at the time, but these quantum cosmologists go on from there to tell us what their particular breed of Nothing consists of. I pointed this out to Davies, who replied that these things are very complicated. I’m willing to admit the truth of that statement, but I think it does not solve the problem


Jonathan Sarfati said:(1998, 12[1]:21, emp. added).
   Some physicists assert that quantum mechanics…can produce something from nothing…. But this is a gross misapplication of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics never produces something out of nothing…. Theories that the Universe is a quantum fluctuation must presuppose that there was something to fluctuate—their “quantum vacuum” is a lot of matter-antimatter potential—not “nothing”

A Universe from Nothing?

http://www.icr.org/article/universe-from-nothing/

Explaining the origin of the universe is an enormous challenge for those seeking to deny their Creator: How could a universe come from nothing? The challenge is so great that some have argued that the universe simply did not even have a beginning, but has existed eternally. However, because most professing atheists have accepted the big bang model of the universe, they have accepted the premise that our universe did indeed have a beginning. Hence, they have a need to explain that beginning.

Theoretical physicist Lawrence Krauss presented in a recent book his claim that the laws of physics could have created the universe from nothing.1 Likewise, other physicists offer similar arguments.

They appeal to the well-known phenomena of “virtual particle” creation and annihilation. The spontaneous (but short-lived) appearance of subatomic particles from a vacuum is called a quantum fluctuation. These subatomic particles appear and then disappear over such short time intervals that they cannot be directly observed. However, the effects of these virtual particles can be detected; they are, for instance, responsible for a very subtle effect on the spectrum of the hydrogen atom called the “Lamb shift.” The short lifetimes of these virtual particles are governed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which says that a short-lived state cannot have a well-defined energy.

The HUP places a limit on the time that a quantum fluctuation can persist. The greater the energy of the fluctuation, the shorter the time that it may last. It is for this reason that virtual particles appear and then disappear after very short intervals.

Krauss and other evolutionary physicists argue that the universe itself is the result of such a quantum fluctuation. However, the HUP itself presents an apparent difficulty for this claim. One would intuitively expect the energy content of the entire universe to be enormous. Hence, even if one were to argue that the universe did “pop” into existence via a quantum fluctuation, the energy content of the universe would be so large that the corresponding time would be vanishingly small, and the newly born universe would then immediately vanish. It is, therefore, difficult to see how our enormous universe could have resulted from such a fluctuation.

Evolutionary physicists argue, however, that if the total energy content of the universe were exactly zero, then a universe resulting from such a fluctuation could persist indefinitely without violating the HUP. This is admittedly a clever argument. Have the “new atheists” found a genuinely convincing way to explain our universe’s existence apart from God?

Not really. The argument hinges on the claim that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero, and this claim is based squarely on Big Bang assumptions. Stephen Hawking writes:

The idea of inflation could also explain why there is so much matter in the universe….The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero.2

Despite Hawking’s blithe assertion, no human being can possibly know the precise energy content of the entire universe. In order to verify the claim that the total energy content of the universe is exactly zero, one would have to account for all the forms of energy in the universe (gravitational potential energy, the relativistic energies of all particles, etc.), add them together, and then verify that the sum really is exactly zero. Despite Hawking’s intelligence and credentials, he is hardly omniscient.

So the claim of a “zero energy” universe is based, not on direct measurements, but upon an interpretation of the data through the filter of the Big Bang model. As hinted in the above quote, the claim comes from inflation theory, which states that the universe underwent a short, accelerated period of expansion shortly after the Big Bang. But “inflation” is an ad hoc idea that was attached to the original Big Bang model in order to solve a number of serious (and even fatal) difficulties.3 Hawking, Krauss, and others are making the claim of a zero energy universe because it is an expected consequence of inflation theory. However, for someone who does not have an a priori commitment to the Big Bang (and inflation theory), it is not at all clear that the universe’s total energy would be exactly zero. In fact, it seems extremely unlikely.

Moreover, when virtual particles momentarily appear within a vacuum, they are appearing in a space that already exists. Because space itself is part of our universe, the spontaneous creation of a universe requires space itself to somehow pop into existence.

In his recent book, Krauss spends very little time addressing this key point. Most of the book consists of a defense of the Big Bang, anecdotal stories, and criticisms of creationists. It is only near the end of the book that he actually seriously addresses this key issue (how space itself could be created from nothing), but he spends very little time on it, despite the fact that the book is over 200 pages long.4 He argues that quantum gravity (a theory that merges quantum mechanics and general relativity) could allow space itself to pop into existence. One obvious problem with this claim is that a workable theory of quantum gravity does not yet exist.

Moreover, the general claim that the laws of physics could have created our universe suffers from a number of serious logical difficulties. Our understanding of the laws of physics is based on observation. For instance, our knowledge of the laws of conservation of momentum and energy come from observations made from literally thousands of experiments. No one has ever observed a universe “popping” into existence. This means that any laws of physics that would allow (even in principle) a universe to pop into existence are completely outside our experience. The laws of physics, as we know them, simply are not applicable here. Rather, the spontaneous creation of a universe would require higher “meta” or “hyper” laws of physics that might or might not be anything like the laws of physics that we know.

But this raises another problem. Since such hypothetical meta or hyper laws of physics are completely outside our experience, why do atheistic physicists naively assume that rules like the HUP would even apply when describing the universe’s creation? They freely speculate about other (unobservable) universes in an alleged “multiverse” that can have laws of physics radically different from our own. Since the HUP is known to be valid only within or inside our universe, it is not at all clear why they would assume that the HUP would even apply when discussing our universe’s creation. Perhaps the HUP is indeed part of these hyper laws of physics, but one could just as easily argue that it is not. One can engage in all kinds of speculation here, but such speculation is not science.

Moreover, even if these supposed higher laws of physics actually existed, in order for them to create the universe, they must have an existence apart from the universe. But this presents a dilemma for the atheist who says that the cosmos is all that exists. Before his death, Carl Sagan acknowledged in correspondence with ICR scientist Larry Vardiman that he recognized this problem for his worldview: His view of origins required the laws of physics to create the cosmos, but because he did not acknowledge his Creator, he could not explain the origin of the laws themselves.5 The existence of physical laws external to the cosmos itself was an obvious violation of his well-known axiom “The Cosmos is all that is or ever was or ever will be.”6

Of course, the atheist could try to dodge this difficulty by resorting to the claim that the cosmos simply had no beginning and is eternal.

But even this avoidance leaves unresolved difficulties. For instance, some are claiming that the cosmos as a whole—the so-called “multiverse”—is eternal, but that it contains infinitely many individual universes (a consequence of modern inflation theory). According to this view, it is only our particular universe that began 13.7 billion years ago. The existence of other alleged (but unobservable) universes supposedly explains our seemingly improbable existence—because the multiverse contains infinitely many universes, the laws of physics and chemistry in at least some of these universes would have properties necessary for life. Thus, our existence is supposedly explained because we just happen to live in such a universe.

A glaring fallacy exposes this argument: While the laws of physics and chemistry in our universe do indeed allow life to exist, they do not allow life to evolve. The laws of physics and chemistry simply are not favorable to the evolution of life.

For decades, creationists have pointed out the insurmountable difficulties with “chemical evolution” scenarios.7, 8, 9 These difficulties don’t vanish simply because someone claims that other (unobservable) universes exist. Even if the laws of physics and chemistry in every single one of these other supposed universes did allow for life to evolve, those laws from another universe could not explain the existence of life in this universe. This should have occurred to the atheists—but their argument demonstrates “vain imaginations” and “foolish, darkened hearts” (Romans 1:21-23).

Despite the impressive academic credentials of those promoting the “universe from nothing” idea, the scenario is utterly unreasonable, and no Bible-believing Christian should be intimidated by these “vain imaginations.”

The Origin of the Universe - Case Closed 
By Robert Amneus, Tim Scapillato

Just precious.....

Spontaneous creation of the universe from nothing

An interesting idea is that the universe could be spontaneously created from nothing, but no rigorous proof has been given.

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1404.1207.pdf?fbclid=IwAR039dZu8nnvhQ7m3dpl-1W1XOZ5cZYvCWebKiSygonqF_duGGsRRFRKvX4

On the absolutely nothing theory, I have come up with the answer to them on that. To have absolutely nothing create the universe they have the quantum fluctuations which appears in space and disappears however does take A pre-existing space for this to happen and we all know space is never empty for one it has gravitational forces working on it for two it has magnetic and radiation working on it amongst other possible forces that we aren’t aware of but empty spaces never nothing it also has time, without time existing nothing can happen.

There is also the HUP that state basically the more energy A quantum fluctuation has the shorter its life expectancy. This is why they need a universe of zero energy so they have claimed gravity is negative energy this way they can claim a zero-energy universe. But they overlooked one thing, the black hole, which they claim there are many black holes in our universe but it only takes one because the black hole theory states that after the event horizon the gravitational forces are infinite!

Yes infinite, so this only requires one black hole to offset all the other energy in the whole universe because you can’t get more than infinite and there are supposedly many black holes in the universe so gravity heavily outweighs all the other energy in the universe.

Vacuum fluctuations are uncertainties rather than things happening as a function of time. The quantum cosmological answer comes from the side-function.  It comes from the universal wave function. Describing all these possible universes, not which actually exist yet, but which are all mathematical possibilities. What does this mean, that the laws are not a mere description of reality, but could have an independent existence of their own, we are talking about the side functions of quantum cosmology. In the absence of space, time, and matter, what tablets could they be written on? The side functions can explain the ways they could exist, it is not a thing yet. The laws are expressed in a form of mathematical equations.

Hawking did raise the following question in the  A brief history of time:  what puts fire into the equation that gives a universe to describe? Should mathematical equations have causal power? Are they substantive in the real world? Usually, mathematical equations are what we use to describe the universe.

Wheeler said: One of the equations we construct or dream up, did make things happening in the real world, it is as to say that the latitude and longitude on a real map are responsible for the height of the Himalayan mountains. The maths in their mind does not cause things to happen in the real world.  To say otherwise is a fallacy of ratification. To compute substantial causal powers to concepts. That is as to say that nature has mathematics build into it.

But math is the expression of a powerful mind over nature.

1. The laws of physics are immutable: absolute, eternal, perfect mathematical relationships, infinitely precise in form.
2. The laws were imprinted on the universe at the moment of creation, i.e. at the big bang, and have since remained fixed in both space and time.
3. The ultimate source of the laws transcend the universe itself, i.e. to lie beyond the physical world.
4. Laws and mathematical formulas objectively, exist, and originate in the mind of conscious intelligent beings.
5. Therefore, the physical laws that govern the universe came from God.

Ethan Siegel The Standard Model Is An Orphan Theory Now Jul 27, 2021

In 1987, Steven Weinberg published a radical, remarkably different idea: that you could calculate the upper limit for the cosmological constant simply limited by the constraint that your Universe must allow gravitationally bound objects to form. What he found was that the limiting value was “only” 118 orders of magnitude smaller than the naive, absurd calculational result.

It led him to speculate that we should have a non-zero cosmological constant to the Universe, and that it wouldn’t be surprising if it were within one or two orders of magnitude of that limiting value. 11 years later, that’s precisely what we concluded about the Universe, confirming Weinberg’s speculative hypothesis that the zero-point energy of empty space isn’t zero after all, but rather has a small but significantly non-zero value. The nothingness of empty space isn’t exactly in line with our ideas of “nothingness” after all.


Visualization of a quantum field theory calculation showing virtual particles in the quantum vacuum. Even in empty space, this vacuum energy is non-zero, but without specific boundary conditions, individual particle properties will not be constrained.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/07/27/the-standard-model-is-an-orphan-theory-now/


Ethan Siegel What Can The Simple Fact That ‘We Exist’ Teach Us About The Universe? Oct 1, 2020,
Another time the anthropic principle was successfully applied was to the puzzle of understanding what the vacuum energy of the Universe is. In quantum field theory, you can try to calculate what the energy of empty space is: known as the zero-point energy of space. If you were to remove all the particles and external fields from a region of space — no masses, no charges, no light, no radiation, no gravitational waves, no curved spacetime, etc. — you’d be left with empty space. But that empty space would still contain the laws of physics in them, which means that it would still contain the fluctuating quantum fields that exist everywhere throughout the Universe. If we try and calculate what the energy density of that empty space is, we get an absurd value that’s far too high: so large that it would cause the Universe to have recollapsed just a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang. Clearly, the answer we get from doing that calculation is wrong. So what’s the right value, then? Although we still don’t know how to calculate it, today, physicist Stephen Weinberg calculated an upper limit on what it could possibly be back in 1987. The energy of empty space determines how quickly the Universe expands or contracts, even apart from all the matter and radiation within it. If that expansion (or contraction) rate is too high, we could never form life, planets, stars, or even molecules and atoms within the Universe. If we use the fact that our Universe has galaxies, stars, planets, and even human beings on one of them, we can place extraordinary limits on how much vacuum energy could possibly be in the Universe. Weinberg’s 1987 calculation demonstrated that it must be at least 118 orders of magnitude — that is, a factor of 10^118 — smaller than the value obtained from quantum field theory calculations. When dark energy was empirically discovered in 1998, we got to measure that number for the first time: it was 120 orders of magnitude (a factor of 10^120) smaller than the naïve prediction.


The string landscape might be a fascinating idea that's full of theoretical potential, but it cannot explain why the value of such a finely-tuned parameter like the cosmological constant, the initial expansion rate, or the total energy density have the values that they do. Still, understanding why this value takes on the particular one it does is a fine-tuning question that most scientists assume has a physically-motivated answer.

Ethan Siegel The Four Different Meanings Of 'Nothing' To A Scientist  May 1, 2020
This is what physicists mean when they talk about nothing: 
Nothingness is the void of empty space. Perhaps you prefer a definition of nothing that contains literally "no things" in it at all. If you follow that line of thinking, then the first definition is inadequate: it clearly contains "something." In order to achieve nothingness, you'll have to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed. If you could somehow remove them all — each and every one — you could ensure that the only thing that was left behind was empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in your Universe, all you'd have left is the void of empty space itself. To some, that's the true scientific definition of "nothingness."

But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. Today, this manifests itself as dark energy; before the Big Bang, this manifested in the form of cosmic inflation, whose end gave rise to the entire Universe. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. Even without matter or radiation of any type, this form of "nothing" still leads to a fascinating Universe.

Nothingness as the ideal lowest-energy state possible for spacetime. Right now, our Universe has a zero-point energy, or an energy inherent to space itself, that's at a positive, non-zero value. We do not know whether this is the true "ground state" of the Universe, i.e., the lowest energy state possible, or whether we can still go lower. It's still possible that we're in a false vacuum state, and that the true vacuum, or the true lowest-energy state, will either be closer to zero or may actually go all the way to zero (or below). To transition there from our current state would likely lead to a catastrophe that forever altered the Universe: a nightmare scenario known as vacuum decay. This would result in many unsavory things for our existence. The photon would become a massive particle, the electromagnetic force would only travel short ranges, and practically all the sunlight our star emits would fail to make its way to Earth. But in terms of imagining this as a state of true nothingness, it's perhaps the ideal scenario that still keeps the laws of physics intact. (Although some of the rules would be different.) If you were able to reach the true ground state of the Universe — whatever that state may look like — and expelled from your Universe all the matter, energy, radiation, spacetime curvature and ripples, etc., you'd be left with the ultimate idea of "physical nothingness." You'd at least still have a stage for the Universe to play out on, but there would be no players. There would be no cast, no script, and no scene to your play, but the vast abyss of physical nothingness still provides you with a stage. The cosmic vacuum would be at its absolute minimum, and there would be no way to extract work, energy, or any real particles (or antiparticles) from it. And yet, to some, this still has the flavor of "something," because space, time, and rules are still in place.

Lets contrast it now with absolutely nothing, or the philosophical nothingness: 
True Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. This is the most extreme case of all: a case that steps out of reality — out of space, time, and physics itself — to imagine a Platonic ideal of nothingness. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness.
In the context of physics, this creates a problem: we cannot make any sense of this sort of nothingness. We'd be compelled to assume that there is such a thing as a state that can exist outside of space and time, and that spacetime itself, as well as the rules that govern all of the physical entities we know of, can then emerge from this hypothesized, idealized state.

The question is, of course: If the nothing that physicists like Krauss talk about, entails the existence of the laws of physics, the quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces,  spacetime, governed by General Relativity, the fundamental constants,  the zero-point energy of space, and still at its current, positive, non-zero value, which manifests itself as dark energy, then the question is: Where did ALL THIS come from ?? Its not, as many think, just virtual particles popping in and out from a quantum vacuum. Its much more. As seen thats still a lot of something, and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demand an explanation.

Virtual particles, and the quantum vacuum generating them, are far from absolutely nothing. 
This is what physicists mean when they talk about nothing:  Nothingness is the void of empty space. They mean however something different than "no things" at all. In order to achieve nothingness, one has to get rid of every fundamental constituent of matter. Every quantum of radiation has to go. Every particle and antiparticle, from the ghostly neutrino to whatever dark matter is, must be removed. Then there would be empty space itself. With no particles or antiparticles, no matter or radiation, no identifiable quanta of any type in the Universe, there would still be empty space itself. To some, that's the scientific definition of "nothingness." But certain physical entities still remain, even under that highly restrictive and imaginative scenario. The laws of physics are still there, which means that quantum fields still permeate the Universe. That includes the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces. Spacetime is still there, governed by General Relativity. The fundamental constants are all still in place, all with the same values we observe them to have. And, perhaps most importantly, the zero-point energy of space is still there, and it's still at its current, positive, non-zero value. This is where the phrase, "a Universe from nothing" comes from. 

Lets contrast it now with absolutely nothing, or the philosophical nothingness:  True Nothingness only occurs when you remove the entire Universe and the laws that govern it. We can conceive of removing everything we can imagine: space, time, and the governing rules of reality. Physicists have no definition for anything here; this is pure philosophical nothingness. The question is, of course: If the nothing that physicists like Krauss talk about, entails the existence of the laws of physics, the quantum fields, the electromagnetic field, the gravitational field, the Higgs field, and the fields arising from the nuclear forces,  spacetime, governed by General Relativity, the fundamental constants,  the zero-point energy of space, and still at its current, positive, non-zero value, which manifests itself as dark energy, then the question is: Where did ALL THIS come from ?? It's not, as many think, just virtual particles popping in and out from a quantum vacuum. Its much more. As seen that's still a lot of something, and not nothing at all. The origin of all these things still demands an explanation.

Quantum foam, a claim so grand,
With virtual particles, a complex land,
Shaping the universe, they say,
In ways we cannot see or weigh.

Vacuum energy, they declare,
A force that's always present, rare,
With fluctuations constant and wild,
Yet unseen, like a hidden child.

Virtual particles, they arise,
Spontaneously, to our surprise,
Creating, annihilating, in a flash,
A puzzling quantum, cosmic clash.

Casimir effect, they assert,
A force that's felt, though not alert,
Between objects close and tight,
Yet virtual particles, out of sight.

Quantum gravity, a lofty goal,
To unify theories, make them whole,
But quantum foam, I must refute,
For its claims, I find quite cute.

Nonsensical, a cosmic joke,
A fanciful tale, a quantum smoke,
With particles virtual, unseen,
A theoretical concept, too extreme.

Let's stick to facts, evidence-based,
Not chase illusions, a quantum waste,
For science, reason, let's be wise,
And not get caught in quantum lies.

[url=Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo]Spontaneous creation of the Universe Ex Nihilo[/url]
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X?fbclid=IwAR3bQxK87-RhQlKmLGNbUGUo1CY0cnXeP1PdVU5S_jrpfWmRP5Al43mHC6w#:~:text=Another%20work%20%E2%80%93%20by%20Tryon%2C%20suggested%20that%20our,in%20the%20sense%20of%20the%20quantum%20field%20theory