Unstable Creation of the Universe is as reasonable a theory as Theistic Creation

I. INTRODUCTIONNow, the main contention I have against theistic creation is that while most theories are potentially valid, most if not all I have seen are particularly understandable. To be valid, I would expect that a theory either fits in with our current understanding or proposes some distinction between two events that causes the universe to behave differently in the latter case, and offers some rationale behind the anomolous behavior. To be understandable, I would expect our knowledge of an event to be sufficient to at least hazard a guess at the outcome of hypothetical situation at the fundamental level. II. CONTENTION WITH THE ALTERNATIVEHere is where I have found difficulty with theistic explanations. For most explanations I have heard, a god's interference is implied but never explained. There is a certain amount of handwaving such that a creator created the Universe because he inherently has the ability to do so, but the method by which it accomplishes this is unknown or unknowable. This, I believe, prevents such theories from achieving understandability. We can't apply the knowledge that somehow, something happened to any hypothetical or real situation. Typical Genesis type stories also involve an instantaneous creation of EVERYTHING at once, which would seem to prevent validity. Such a massive influx of matter and energy seems to go against the laws of conservation that we see currently apply to the universe. This does not necessarily bar the theory from being true, but there is a clear gap there when no explanation is given as to why in this case such laws that otherwise hold true are allowed to differ. It is my hope that my opponent will provide a more elaborated answer that will fill these gaps, but as I have yet to allow him to speak, Ill await round three to speak more on this. Instead I now present my own option. As this is not necessarily a real scientific theory I have no empirical evidence to back up this, but I will try to show how it could reasonably fit in with current accepted laws and theories of physics. All I must do here is present an alternative that can MATCH a deistic theory in feasibility and reasonability. The current need for a "start" of the Universe comes from the evident expansion of known space all from a single point, where the supposed "Big Bang" occured. I will try to offer a way this starting point may have come about and triggered, without external stimulation. III. UNSTABLE UNIVERSEAn unstable universe proposal hinges on the idea that "nothing" is simply lack of perception, but not necessarily a complete lack of existence. An example of this is seen in wave interference, such as in diffraction, or active noise cancellation. What occurs in destructive wave interference is that two equal waves out of phase with one another cancel out and sum to zero. While the original wave does exist, effectively it is invisible and intangible to us, because it doesn't affect our senses. As we only detect things on a basis of change, when something remains constant, our brains naturally filter it out. . http://techexplainer.files.wordpress.com... [2]This picture may help demonstrateStudies of particle physics already know that matter such as leptons and quarks all have respective antimatter which can eliminate them, leaving behind an equivalent amount of energy, according to Einstein's E = Gamma*m*c^2[2]. By this, we can theoretically have a "pre-Universe" before the supposed Big Bang, where there is no matter, only travelling waves of the 4 fundamental forces of physics[3]. All the force carrying boson particles such as photons are subject to particle wave duality, meaning when we look at them we see they behave similarly to waves as well as particles. Since they act as waves, this means they can undergo interference, which would appear then, to be a void of nothingness, where there would be no matter and no apparent energy. An analogy that could be used is a house of cards. Clearly there is potential energy stored in a house of cards, at any moment you could expect a collapse that would be considered an act, a "something". But for the moment, when all the forces balance out to equilibrium, it appears that nothing is happening. This is not to say, however, that absolutely nothing would be occuring. Even in this static balanced state, there would be continuous minor fluctuations going on everywhere. We could explain this by looking at Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle[4]. Most people are familiar with this idea from electrons, and how they more erratically and you cannot be certain of where they are going. But there is another application of it: Time Energy indeterminency. Because base units of energy are neither particles nor waves, they do not have the specific boundaries and exact measurements you could do with a particle. For bits of time you can "borrow" extra energy than you actually have, so long as you pay it back, so energy yo-yos up and down to some degree. What this means is that in our house of cards, there is a constant nudging on all sides in incredibly small amounts on our structure. Of course even a flimsy stack of cards has enough stability to weather tiny puffs of wind, and time-energy indeterminency occurs at very low energies, so this isn't typically an issue. Our null-void should stabilize when the energy borrowed is "paid back". However, there isn't an exact limit on how much energy you can steal, only that with more energy it becomes less likely and holds for less time. But all that is needed is that highly unlikely probability to hit once, and suddenly that balancing force is unbalanced, and a wave propogation can occur. The house of cards starts to fall. Again, like our house, that initial break on its own is a minor issue, but sets off a domino effect(Gosh I'm using a lot of toy metaphors here) to turn other virtual particles into real ones. As that initial wave knocks into adjacent pairs of opposing forces, it unbalances them, causing another wave to form there, which in turn forms another. After a sufficient amount of energy is unbalanced in this way, there is an amount of free energy that outweighs the initially "borrowed" energy that must be paid back. When a decent amount of energy is gathered, it can combine into matter, according to Einstein's aforementioned equation. In this newly forming universe, there continues to exist these balanced force/antiforce or matter/antimatter particles, but with constant matter and energy moving around them, they quickly are unsettled and break into pairs of measurable affecting particles, continuing to add to the mass and energy of the universe. This can be seen today where pairs of "color charges"(A type of energy in the strong force) seems to pop out of nowhere, when really they are just a pair of opposites that are merely separating[5]. This action accelerates with more and more energy waves, leading to a rapid expansion of matter and energy. This would be our "Big Bang". Now of course this explanation is mostly unfounded and has no data to back it up, but it can be seen that it doesn't contradict our current understanding of the world, but still allows us to answer basic questions by using the theory. How did the big bang happen? Energy indeterminency because of particle wave duality. Why hasnt there been another big bang? Because we are no longer in a quasistable balancing state. That said, I'm sure there must be problems with this theory, there usually is in science. I leave it to my opponent to offer a better alternative. I look forward to reading your thoughts Kbub. IV. SOURCES1. . http://techexplainer.wordpress.com...2..http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...3.http://csep10.phys.utk.edu...4.http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...5.http://www.particleadventure.org...