Who Made God?

It doesn't need a vacuum, the instanton is an entire four-dimensional history, an entire universe and it explicitly does not exist "in" anything else. Anyway this is like at the limits of unproven hyper advanced theoretical physics, it wouldn't really make much sense unless one knew quantum mechanics well enough*. Which leads to: It's just a proposal of Hawking's, not a scientifically accepted consensus.

Yeah, what they're saying is right. Not too difficult to show.Energy to run light bulb:
100 Watts means it needs 100 Joules of Energy per second.That's:
100 x 60 (minute) x 60 (hour) x 24 (day) x 365.25 (year) x 28479 (quoted number of years) ~ 90,000,000,000,000 Joules.Energy in paper clip:
m = 0.001 kg
c (speed of light) ~ 300,000,000 m/s
c^2 ~ 90,000,000,000,000,000 m^2/s^2E = mc^2 = (0.001) * (90,000,000,000,000,000) = 90,000,000,000,000 JoulesSame as the figure above.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

Virtual particles popping in and out of the vacuum is a common popularization. It's also incorrect, empty space is just empty. It's sort of a popularization that occurred at an unfortunate time. Early in quantum field theory's development it looked like it predicted particles popping in and out of the vacuum, and this hit old science magazines, but it actually doesn't. Maybe, but it's a subtle issue to grasp. I don't personally recall people supporting Hawking's instanton theory, but I may have missed the threads.If you mean that the Big Bang explains the origins of the universe or stuff like "Time began in the big bang", which aren't true, I'm not surprised people think this. Nearly every popular account says so. The two semesters I taught graduate cosmology the students actually couldn't believe that the Big Bang doesn't explain the origin of the universe, as all media and books say so again and again. I think this is a failing of the physics community, we are content to have programs explain half-formed notions from the 1940s instead of modern physics, which genuinely I think is clearer and easier to grasp.Edited by Son Goku, : *not surprised

I'm not sure what you're asking for here. For example regarding assumptions, the Big Bang theory predicts present effects as evidence of a past event, the same as any historical theory. e.g. the theory that the an old tower collapsed would predict that you would see debris from the tower on the ground.
There isn't really any assumptions.Are you asking for the observational evidence for the Big Bang?

Observational evidence refers to measurable side effects in the present, not eye witness accounts. To the first sentence, yes I am saying that. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence means. If you mean we assume what the past might have been like, derive present consequences of that and then see if they are true, then yes. Such as? It doesn't assume that. I don't want you to believe that as it is not what the Big Bang theory states. These sound like questions one would ask of a theory that purports to explain the origins of reality, which the Big Bang theory is not. The Big Bang theory is a theory about the state of the observable universe 13.7 billion years ago.The Big Bang theory is not about how the universe began or how things originated or how reality started. It is simply a historical claim about the observable universe.
Stop and think about what this means. If I had a theory that a volcano erupted on an island 3,000 years ago and I worked out as a consequence that the soil should contain, say 12.6% calcium. A valid criticism of the theory would be:
(a) Measurement of the soil contains 13.4% calcium
(b) Sea deposits may have left the calcium.Invalid methods of criticism would be to say:
We have 3 choices.
1. The volcano has always existed.
2 The volcano began to exist where there was non existence.
3. The volcano was created by an all powerful eternal God.

​

#1 is impossible as the volcano would be dead.
#2 is impossible as existence cannot begin to exist
#3 is the only logical choice.Similarly with the Big Bang theory. It is not a theory about the ultimate origins of the world, hence criticisms about an origins theory are irrelevant.

In physics at least, people would view the answer as more important, just that the where and how must be sound. The answer is people's main motivation.

This is what I meant by the where and how must be sound. I still don't know if it is everything. It might be for science as a philosophical system, but for why people are motivated by it, want to do research I'm not so sure or as it is practiced, I'm not too sure. I'm not sure that is something that is true in universal and I think it ignores qualitative answers.For example if the Higgs mass is over ~ 650GeV it implies the universe is very different from if it is under 650Gev. I think people do care about the actual value in this case and in several other cases as they want to understand the world.Also in several cases the numerical results are simply to confirm a qualitative fact. "Does spin couple to magnetism?" and other such qualitative answers are all checked by numerical results, but people care about the qualitative answer. Not just that the method it was arrived at with was sound.Unless I'm misunderstanding you.Edited by Son Goku, : Addition.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.Edited by Son Goku, : No reason given.

10^(-6180) is smaller than that number.

The thread title has an obvious answer if we go by anime logic. God was made by Ultra God no Kami Z.